Thus speak Zarathustra reflection`
I found the content of the book to be convoluted, making it harder for me to extract Nietzsche’s philosophical ideas and relate them to the course theme of human nature. My limited understanding of the book is that Zarathustra, who seemed to be in line with characteristics of Jesus, advocates that becoming “superman is the meaning of the earth”. He also claims that “man is the string between the beast and the superman”. I question, how is his view of humanity similar to and different from Darwinian/modern understanding of humans? They are similar in that both speak of progress and both view the current state of humanity to be transitional. However, Zarathustra argues that the goal of humanity is to become a desirable type of human called “superman”, otherwise humans will degrade to animals. Meanwhile, Darwinian theory states that human fitness is dependent on its surroundings, so humans will evolve accordingly to the current and future environment. This means one cannot assume an ideal type of human for which to strive. Zarathustra also mentions that the breeding of supermen will make human kind too domesticated and tamed, thus becoming meek, and seeking only to pursue simple pleasure. This reminds me of the future described in The Time Machine. Will this mean that humans will lose one’s creativity and intelligence? This would cause a digression from individuality, which is a main characteristic of human nature. I think the “last man” would be more ferocious and resilient as it struggles to compete against others to survive.
Zarathustra articulates that “one should be truthful to earth”. I can deduce that the truthfulness to earth refers to the acceptance of science because he elaborates his comment by adding, “blasphemy to God once existed when God existed”. Science and knowledge exist, so denying the science and law of nature will be the equivalent to blasphemy of God. Here is where my second question arose: Can religion and science co-exist? When Zarathustra repeats, “God is dead”, I do not think he was referring to the physical disappearance of God, but rather to the traditional Christian culture in western society. Since new things were created and discovered, one should progress to adapt different ways of thinking beyond the tradition Christian way. Christianity was dominating over European countries at the time of Nietzsche, and unwillingness to be “truthful to science” must have hindered the advancement of humanity. For instance, tradition Christianity dictates that eating from a tree of knowledge was the fall of humanity. This notion impedes one from questioning and thinking critically because it will be against God’s will. For human desire to improve and a quest for knowledge, stubborn fundamentalism or the closed-minded Christianity, is hostile to science because it will condemn those who seek for the truth. However, my opinion is that they can both co-exist as long as these two areas communicate with each other, understand that they work under different constraints, and each other do not breech one another’s realm of governance.
The co-existence of science and religion brings up another question of what is truth. Is there an absolute truth to every questions and reality? Is the truth created or discovered? If discovered, wouldn’t truth be relative since the timing and content of discovery may not be consistent throughout population. If there is an absolute truth, there must be an absolute morality, but I think otherwise. Depending on cultural background and religious beliefs system, it can be moral to one but not to the other. If none of humans have same morality, on what do we base our human nature? This raises further questions on who we are as human with different understanding of world and where we are heading, as our different morality dictate us to look at different direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment