Criticisms of the philosophy of Nietzsche

[ArgumentumAdHominem]

This is an off-shoot of the discussion Is the Christian God Moral?

I do not see how you can legitimately come to the conclusion that my "analysis of Nietzsche" shows a trend in fallacious thinking. I have not made a detailed analysis of his writings and thinking, which I pray God I never will have to.

I'm sorry, I think I wasn't clear in my statement.  What I meant was that your analysis of this argument from the work of Nietzsche shows fallacious thinking.  I don't need you to analyse all of his work in order for me to detect a genetic fallacy.

I treat his mixed up philosophies with contempt ...

Evidently so.

... primarily because he spouted them out, not with an honest desire in seeking truth ...

Are you are telling us that you know what Nietzsche's intent was, that you know that he did not have an "honest desire for seeking the truth"?

... but from an arrogant, contemptuous mind that thought it dwelt in the rarefied stratosphere of higher intellect and not the morass of evil and idiocy where it actually habituated.

I agree that he expressed his opinion that he had a superior intellect (as evidenced by entitling chapters of one of his books; "Why I Am So Clever" and "Why I Am So Wise") but this demonstrates narcissism not whether he was actually intelligent or not.

Sure it was a form of ad hominem attack, but not primarily so, because the philosophy emanating from a person is indivisible from his esse, otherwise, as Luthon64 says: he bears false witness to the code he claims to live by.

But your ad hominem was an accusation that his writings lead directly to Nazism, but as I pointed-out, his idea of the "superman" was very different from the Nazi idea of an Aryan race.  Nazism is not a part of Nietzsche's "esse" and so leveling that ad hominem attack against him is not a fair criticism - even according to the logical argument you gave here.

There is something he said, that I agree with, however. [...] He says in "Gay Science", I think in book 3, "Over immense periods of time the intellect produced nothing but errors." That is the difference between man-made philosophies and codes for living, when juxtaposed alongside epistemologies and codes for living emanating from God.

I think you have th right stick there, but you're holding the wrong end.  The reason why I cannot hope to explain more clearly than this extract from "Willing and Nothingness: Schopenhauer as Nietzsche's Educator" by Christopher Janaway (1998, Oxford University Press).

In fact, although Nietzsche is now less blunt about it, The Gay Science affirms his earlier claim that natural science discloses 'the true nature of the world'. Gay Science 110 claims that 'over immense periods of time the intellect produced nothing but errors', some of which proved useful, helped to preserve the species and were therefore 'continually inherited'. [...] Nietzsche's point must be that they discovered 'nothing but errors' in their theorizing about the nature of the world.  Among these 'basic errors' he includes the following 'articles of faith': 'that there are enduring things; [...] that our will is free; that what is good for me is also good itself'.  Nietzsche thinks that we know these are errors because of what science tells us ...

[ArgumentumAdHominem]

Nietzsche also says in relation to moral codes: "The conditions for the preservation of different communities were very different." This was probably the kernel thought for what we know today as Postmodernism.

Indeed relativism is one of the core principles of postmodern philosophy, well spotted.

Hopefully a third reference to Nietzsche's "Gay Science" (or more precisely: "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft") will satisfy you. Luthon64 cited a section where Nietzsche proclaims: "Morality is herd instinct in the individual."

Not that it matters much, I made that reference, and 'Luthon has raised her objection to its use in the discussion about morals.  But anyway ...

There is only one aspect to that assertion that has a modicum of truth in it and that is that in many cases, an individual's morality, or lack thereof, is determined by how his or her peers behave around them. This is often evident in something as mundane as, for example, certain people rising to their feet at a music concert, or a play, to display their pleasure and a possible request for an encore, or a curtain call. [...] That is not herd mentality in the construction of moral codes but in behavioural practice.

The herd instinct in the individual is not a description of herd-like behavioural observations, you are fixating on the word "herd" for the wrong reason.  What Nietzsche is saying is that morals are the byproduct of looking after the herd - "what must I do so that we all survive?".  It is silly to think that domesticated animal herds have thoughts, but entertain my ramblings for a moment and consider an analogy of a herd of sheep;  The sheep know that losing members is a threat to the herd, they might decide that there is a threat to the herd whenever anyone goes to the lower pasture because (quite often) members of the flock are attacked and die there.  It may become law that it is unacceptable to go to the lower pasture.  Even after many generations (long after the wolves migrated away) it may still be law that the "moral" ones follow, they do not question the law because it is for the good of the flock.

So, similarly, morals as we experience them are the pressures on us as individuals to make sure that our flock / herd (the Christian community or the South African community or the Human race, whichever) survives.  We must not kill because it endangers the herd, if everyone killed then there would be nobody left in the herd.  We must not commit homosexual acts because if everyone did then there would be no new generations and the herd would die of old age.  Etcetera, etcetera.

[johnno777]

I only have time now to respond to one item in your post. Hopefully I will find more time tomorrow for the others.

I can’t remember if it was in “On the Genealogy of Morals” or in “Beyond Good and Evil” that Nietzsche espouses the possibility that untruth is more desirable than truth. He said: “Suppose we want truth: why not rather untruth? and uncertainty? even ignorance?” That indicates to me that he was not honestly interested in finding truth but in playing mind games with people who read his works. Besides, he was probably on something at the time as well.
ps. would you show me how to show quotations the way you do? I tried highlighting sections, then pressing quote, but it just quotes the whole page. Please give me a blow by blow instruction. Thanks

[Anacoluthon64]

ps. would you show me how to show quotations the way you do? I tried highlighting sections, then pressing quote, but it just quotes the whole page. Please give me a blow by blow instruction. Thanks

When you’re logged in and reading a thread’s messages, you will notice that each message carries a “Quote” link in its top right corner.  You can click this.  Alternatively, when you click the main "REPLY" link at the top (or bottom) of a thread’s display page, you will notice that each message carries an "Insert Quote" link in its top right corner.  The "Insert Quote" link allows you to cite multiple different messages in one of yours once you have entered reply mode because each message in the thread has its own "Insert Quote" link.  There are some other ways, too, that involve opening other threads and/or pages in separate browser instances or windows.

Clicking either of the above links will place the message it belongs to into the message editing box, but surrounded by the quote tags, for example: "[·quote author=aaaaa link=topic=ttt.msgnnnn#msgnnnn date=dddddddddd]Hello[·/quote]" (where I have inserted "·" characters for illustrative purposes to prevent the Simple Machines forum hosting software from interpreting these tags correctly).  Note that aaaaa, ttt, nnnn and dddddddddd are, respectively, the author’s forum name, a thread identifier, a message identifier and a date/time enumerator.  You can cite different parts of someone’s message simply by wrapping the desired parts in between the same applicable "[·quote author=aaaaa link=topic=ttt.msgnnnn#msgnnnn date=dddddddddd]" and "[·/quote]" tags (omitting the "·" character), which set of tags you can use multiple times in the same message.  Or you can use parts of multiple different messages using the "Insert Quote" link where required, which will insert the relevant message with its quote tags into the edit box without losing whatever else already appears in the edit box.

Use the "Preview" button to see if your message displays as you would like it to, before using the "Post" button.

I hope that you find the above helpful.

ETA: Actually, the easiest way to see how it is done is to "Quote" a message that includes multiple citations and examining the edit box’s contents.

'Luthon64

[johnno777]

You said:
[/quote]
"The herd instinct in the individual is not a description of herd-like behavioural observations, you are fixating on the word "herd" for the wrong reason.  What Nietzsche is saying is that morals are the byproduct of looking after the herd."

I take your point, but there is a basic difference in the point of departure between Nietzschean/ Postmodern perspectives on humanity and what I believe to be the biblical Christian perspective. The former gives pre-eminence to community whereas the latter places primary importance on the individual (There is a strain of “Christians” who believe otherwise). I think the “herd” metaphor is used because it is a by-product of humanist and Darwinian analyses of the origin of the species, humankind. With that presupposition, an individual is looked at more as a primeval creature with certain innate, primordial instincts. With that background, it is logical to presume that human beings, like animals, will have a certain herd instinct; that is to behave in a manner that shows a concern for the preservation of the herd.

My understanding of what the Bible teaches about the origins of humankind is that the individual is primary and that the only primordial instinct in an individual, is for him or her to want to sin. A part of God’s Grace (unmerited favour) to humankind, is that, which is known by theologians as His “Universal Grace”; for example: He lets the rain fall and the sun shine on the wicked as well as the righteous. (Matthew 5:45). In a similar vein, He imputes a level of moral conscience in everyone, so that they may be able to intuitively determine good from evil, right from wrong. They may never hear the Gospel, but they will know instinctively that to kill a fellow human being, for instance, is wrong. It is with this emphasis on the individual that His sense of morality, fairness and justice is displayed. Some time in the future, every single person ever born on earth, will stand in front of God to be judged on how they lived their lives here. If communities were to be judged adversely, even if within those communities, there were individuals who subscribed to His laws, those individuals would be hard done by and unfairly punished, if they were punished for the sins of the community as a whole. So, whilst Christians engender altruism toward the other, or as Huber says,thou, be they individuals or communities, their moral sensibilities are not derived from them directly, or as a by-product, nor are they constituted for the purpose of ensuring its physical survival.

You say:
"So, similarly, morals as we experience them are the pressures on us as individuals to make sure that our flock / herd (the Christian community or the South African community or the Human race, whichever) survives.  We must not kill because it endangers the herd, if everyone killed then there would be nobody left in the herd.  We must not commit homosexual acts because if everyone did then there would be no new generations and the herd would die of old age.  Etcetera, etcetera."
[/quote]

Apropos to what I said earlier, your (and Nietzsche’s) contention is that morality is derived and constituted from and for utilitarian considerations of survival and sustainability of the human species. My contention is that that is not a true and accurate rendition of what morality means. Immorality can easily be present in a society where people do not kill each other and do not take part in homosexual acts, not to speak of amorality. A moral code commands and demands people to live aright. The code is constituted by an encoder (God). With an autonomous, stand-alone code, the distinction between right and wrong can be made, not because of utilitarian considerations, but because of what its author designates to be righteous and unrighteous.

[johanvz]

What Nietzsche is saying is that morals are the byproduct of looking after the herd - "what must I do so that we all survive?".  It is silly to think that domesticated animal herds have thoughts, but entertain my ramblings for a moment and consider an analogy of a herd of sheep;  The sheep know that losing members is a threat to the herd, they might decide that there is a threat to the herd whenever anyone goes to the lower pasture because (quite often) members of the flock are attacked and die there.  It may become law that it is unacceptable to go to the lower pasture.  Even after many generations (long after the wolves migrated away) it may still be law that the "moral" ones follow, they do not question the law because it is for the good of the flock.

I can't agree with the above post. Think about it for a moment. The herding instinct is a viable survival strategy. If an animal lags behind the herd it is almost certain to be killed. If a sheep stays in the herd there is only a probability of being killed. The sheep is not acting out of interest for the group, but in the interest of preserving its own genes.

We must not kill because it endangers the herd, if everyone killed then there would be nobody left in the herd.

But would it then be ok to kill members of other herds? My take on this is that I don't want to be killed, so why should it be ok for me to kill other people?

We must not commit homosexual acts because if everyone did then there would be no new generations and the herd would die of old age.  Etcetera, etcetera.

Firstly, this does not agree with what we observe in nature. Many species continue to exist in spite of rampant homosexual behaviour. Secondly, if someone is homosexual that does not affect me or the herd in any real way, they will simply be removed from the gene pool. Thirdly, if we say homosexuality is ok, that does not imply everyone must now become homosexual.

My view is that herds,societies,governments,etc were all created initially to serve the needs of the individuals that formed those groups. Therefore a moral code that places greater importance on the group than the individual becomes really problematic.

[Anacoluthon64]

Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene addresses this individual vs. herd issue in some depth.  The gist of it is that, in and of themselves, neither the individual nor the herd matters in any significant way; the telling point is that a pair of alleles producing a tendency to herd together in most ruminants has conferred a survival advantage, however slight, on those endowed with them over those individuals that have not.  Thus, those animals that herd together proliferate preferentially and come to dominate within their specific reproductive kind.  With many predators, just the opposite is true owing to fierce competition for resources.  In this sense, what we view as morals are perhaps just those general rules of conduct that, through refinement by successful lines of descent, we have been both genetically predisposed to follow and astute enough to pick out, to abstract and to formalise as conventions that procure optimal overall prosperity at the cost of minimal individual restriction.

The above ruminant/predator distinction also illustrates, in an allegorical way, a central theme in the Nietzschean conception of morality (which is what this thread is about), namely the difference between “masters” and “slaves,” without due regard for which distinction any discussion of Nietzsche’s thoughts on morality would be incomplete.  The “master” and “slave” classes, according to Nietzsche, are naturally, but not heritably, ordained on an individual basis and fixed for an individual.  In essence, the distinction is between leaders and followers.  Morally speaking, both “masters” and “slaves” can be good insofar as they serve the greater good that is within the ambit of the individual; “slaves” can be bad but not evil, while “masters” can be evil but not bad, each by virtue of the social influence they wield.  The “slave” aspires to follow (unerringly) the moral code of the “masters,” while simultaneously viewing it with some suspicion (which can produce badness), whereas the “masters” would first adopt and then quickly subvert (which produces evilness) the moral code of the “slaves” in such a way that affords them a sense of absolution.

'Luthon64