There are, I think, three great minds that have presented the greatest
challenge ever to traditional western philosophical and religious thought:
Nietzsche, Marx and Freud. In general they all present a strong argument for a
kind of “relativism”.
Nietzsche demonstrates that we are who we are because of the conditions of our
birth, not because of some kind of “soul” or
“substance”. He and Freud convincingly argued, I think, that our
religion has more to do with psychological desire than truth.
Marx demonstrates how “values” are nothing but a way for the
powerful $ rich to keep the powerless $ poor under control.
Together, some of the most beloved themes of philosophy seem to be dead, i.e.
– questions of right and wrong, questions of God and questions of what is
– what is real and what is unreal.
But, one must ask oneself, I think, this question after reading Nietzsche:
“Does his perspectivism mean that there is no truth, or does it mean that
there is no absolute truth?” Relativism always holds a paradoxical
position:
How can it be that the truth is that there is no truth? *wink* If that is so,
then the statement “there is no truth” is also untrue. I would say
that we can find certain truths and have done so – in science,
philosophy, etc, but there is not some kind of overacting ultimate truth.
Most philosophers are not concerned with God as a big, immortal Daddy up in the
sky, who tells you what is right and what is wrong. Such a conception seems
obviously imsguided and a result of culture and not reality. The brillant
French mathematician and philosopher, René Descartes, who is considered the
father of modern philosophy, thought that God guaranteed truth. – He
guarantees that we are not just brains floating around in some alien spaceship
being manipulated. For Benedict Spinoza, the Dutch philosopher, God becomes
what is – a kind of cosmological view. They do not discuss “Should
Timothy be imprisoned for something that never
occurred?” or some such ethical question. And by stating that “God
is dead” Nietzsche does not just suggest that we can now forget about
going to church, but that we must question, if we can rely on God to answer
those problematical philosophical questions that are not answered – what
is real, how can we know truth?, etc.
The reason that I started to become committed to serious study of philosophy was,
because Nietzsche made me think something, that
completely uprooted my world-view – the idea that morals are relative. Of
course, one knows that in
Although for a long time I was deeply committed to this point of view, I am now
uncertain. I am not sure about the existence of any God, but I do believe that
we have a duty to try to work together for the betterment of all people and
wildlife, and not just to be “good” persons, as in not killing,
etc. I have found experiences in my life could only be defined as
“religious”. But, of course, I can not say these experiences mean
that something godlike exists, or are merely internal sentiments that signify
nothing.
What I suppose that I find lacking in most moral systems is the idea of being
active and not just reactive. Of course, I do not think one should run around
selling out ones friends, murdering the innocent, etc. but since I think most
people do not have such life or death choices, the question is: “ How do I know, what the right thing to do is, when I
am not presented with a problem? Can I just live my life however I see fit
without hurting others?” I would answer myself and say: “That is
the least expected of you.” One should also try and do something better
than just “not” doing what is wrong. In this sense I agree with
Nietzsche’s viewpoint. I do not think that the law should say “ you must help others”, but that one is an ugly
person, if you do not. I disbelieve in relativism. But ultimately, I can not
justify without a doubt my reasons for believing in the necessity of helping
others. I think it is some kind of emotional sense of WE ARE ALL IN THIS LIFE
TOGETHER.
The reason that Nietzsche is very interesting to read, still and always, is,
that he spoke of some truths of human existence that perhaps are not
“eternal” truths, but, nonetheless, I think truth can be understood
as an adjective better than a noun. Truth about something, but perhaps there is
no universal truth. This is problematic as I have sketchily written about, when
it comes to ethics, since many of us would like to think that, what is good is
always good. But if one takes this route, then truth starts to take on a kind
of reality or substance, which belies its real natures a concept, that helps
describe human thoughts and actions.
I want to share some “far-out” ideas with you, now. In Nietzsche,
there is a notion of the “eternal return” which says that one
should affirm every event in ones life again and again. Some would say it is a
kind of carpe diem – “seize the day” - attitude. But, in
Nietzsche, it appears always at the mention of death. Cross this idea with the
cosmopological theory of “The Big Bang”, which says that the
universe is much like a balloon; it will expand to a certain point and then
because of the gravitational pull have to collapse back into itself – and
then it will explode back out in expansion, then collapse back into itself,
tehn explode back out, collapes back in…and infinitum. Then the external
return says that not only should you affirm your life and I mine, but that in
fact our lives will happen exactly as they already have over and over again.
Everything in time plays itself over again in an endless repeat – all
atoms line up, the planets, our sun, the dinosaurs, human life, the death of
human life, the death of all species on earth, the end of the universe, and all
over again. To affirm life is to affirm destiny. In 200 billion years I will be
born again, but since I have no immortal soul, I will not know it, but
everything – me sitting here writing these exact words to you –
everything – will happen exactly as it is happening now.
This is hardly a well-supportal thesis, but an interesting cross of theories
– huh? I hope that this has been worth reading.
© Copyright 2003 Timothy Greenlee
The truth about Supermax
by Timothy Greenlee
A
Conversation with Timothy Greenlee
Comments regarding
the Conversation Timothy Greenlee
Days in the life
of SHU inmate Timothy Greenlee
Life in
SHU - Malfeasance, Revenge and The Tour
Life in SHU - Strip
Search and Walk of Shame
Phylosophy Truth,
Life and Death
Site Map