My Life, My Choice!

According to Feodor Dostoevsky, “something that is dearer to almost every man than his greatest advantages must really exist, or there is one most advantageous advantage which is more important and more advantageous than all other advantages, for which, if necessary, a man is ready to act in opposition to all laws, that is, in opposition to reason, honor, peace, prosperity--- in short, in opposition to all those wonderful and useful things if only he can attain that fundamental, most advantageous advantage which is dearer to him than all” (pgs. 40-41).

At this current moment in time, I am battling with my own “most advantageous advantage”. With only one semester left of college, I plan to leave home against my parents will (for they do not know it yet), and to pursue a road in my life which will not be easy but worth it. My whole family has had this set of morals for which I should live by since I can even remember! “Go to school, get a career with good benefits, do not do drugs, do not drink alcohol, do not watch TV and do homework at the same time…” the list goes on and on. I agree as to why they have done this for me, and I am completely grateful for their guidance. After all I am about to attain my degree and about to enter the big world; I can see the horizon out yonder, and I am almost there.

But! I will be choosing to leave the comfort of my home, leave all I have ever known behind, and start a life for myself. In fact I will be taking this journey with a person I have only met four months ago.

Does it sound absurd? Yes.

Is it absurd? Yes.

Is it worth it? Maybe not in the eyes of everyone else in this world, but to me Yes. I THINK IT IS COMPLETELY WORTH IT.

What if just for once, just once, I wanted to do what I wanted with my life, and no one could take that from me? What if I have found something that I find worth the battle and the struggle? What if I already know what I am going to be expecting but I am still willing to go through with it?

I know that one day I WILL be as successful as I would have been if I had taken the easy road. My determination and will, will guide me to my goals and dreams. Out of my own free unfetter choice, I will choose to oppose all the reason and everyone’s opinion to fight for something that I could have achieved much easier. But that is the most amazing thing of life! That that is my choice!

“And in particular it may be more advantageous than any other advantages even when it does obvious harm, and contradicts the soundest conclusions of our reason about our advantage--- because in any case it preserves for us what is most precious and most important--- that is, our personality, our individuality” (pg. 45).

I am fascinated with the fact that my situation can go either the way I hope it to or it can go straight down the drain and turn out to be a catastrophe. I could become emotionally hurt, my family could turn their backs on me, and I could lose everything I have ever known for good should this all backfire on me. Should it turn out that way I will have learned a valuable lesson and I will continue on towards my goals, and I will do everything to prove everyone else that I did things wrong but I still achieved it all in the end. (Although I am pretty sure everything will be just fine).

My desire is overpowering this whole situation. “Desire can, of course, if it desires, be in agreement with reason; particularly if it does not abuse this practice but does so in moderation, it is both useful and sometimes even praiseworthy. But very often, and even most often, desire completely and stubbornly opposes reason, and… and… and do you know that that, too, is useful and sometimes even praiseworthy?” (pgs. 45-46).

It was so ironic that we got to read Dostoevsky’s work at this current time in my life. In a sense, as I sat in class last night, I felt more empowered by my decisions. A sense of closure if you will. I am not the only one who would oppose everything telling me not to and to do it anyways. I am not alone, and this author has clearly seen this.

“I believe in that, I vouch for it, because, after all, the whole work of man seems really to consist in nothing but proving to himself continually that he is a man and not an organ stop” (pg. 47). 

Master Vs. Slave Morality

Something I found interesting that that brought up was.

“Can one be a master… Be a ruler… Do ruler things…and have slaves… and have a “Slave morality”?

I would say No. For Nietzsche action is proof. In Nietzsche’s eyes if one is truly a master, and believe himself to be above others and to look down on slaves in despise then they cannot have slave morality. For they are the noble men, the ones who have their own free will, those who are not made for pity, and are the heroes.

But then he contradicts this with saying:

“I add immediately that in all the higher and more mixed cultures there also appear attempts at mediation between these two moralities, and yet more often the interpenetration and mutual misunderstanding of both and at times the occur directly alongside each other---even in the same human being, within a single soul” (pg. 76).  

The way Nietzsche makes it appear as if no way could someone who is a slave, ruler, someone who owns slaves and does the things of a true ruler have the morality of that in which he rises above. But then he goes to say, “Oh but by the way guys these two moralities can exist in one person, the same soul.

I also found it interesting to learn the differences between “good” and “bad versus “good” and “evil”.

For in the master morality “good” is considered to be “noble” or the desired outcome, and “bad” is considered to be shameful, even disgraceful.   According to slave morality, those who embrace the idea of “evil” thus inspire fear. They allow others to determine how things will be for them out of fear of rising up and taking control of their own life and their own morals. They show pity, patience, humility, and friendliness. They do not have free will, and they fear to seek out what they could be for themselves. “Wherever slave morality becomes preponderant, language tends to bring the words “good and “stupid” close together” (pg 78). This is because even they cannot see that they are being suppressed, that they do not have free will. They are blind. Such a morality is not honored by those of the master morality.

“Slave morality needs an opposite and external world; it needs, psychologically speaking, external stimuli in order to be able to act at all, --- its action is, from the ground up, reaction” (pg 82.)

“The reverse is the case with the noble manner of valuation: it acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks out its opposite only in order to say “yes” to itself still more gratefully and more jubilantly---its negative concept “low” “common” “bad” is only an after-birth, a pale contrast image in relation to its positive basic concept” (pg 87).

What this tells me is the only time that a person who holds true to master morality will only seek out opposition in order to prove they are right and above the one who they feel is wrong. Whereas with the person who holds slave morality close they seek out opposition as a source to base their own interpretations off of. A slave morality individual will look outward for interpretations, looking for reason to justify their claims and the way they feel.  A master morality character will already have their minds set and they will merely only be trying to convince other of their interpretations because for them, they are right and everyone else is wrong.

“If you had to repeat every action forevermore, what would you change?”

If I felt that everything I did now would continue to happen to me forevermore, I would not change anything. If I change one thing, it will affect another. I can make good, or I could make bad choices. If I make choices that will lead me in the right direction, there will always be a tempting choice later on to lead me in the wrong direction. It is a never ending battle, and I would just choose to not do anything differently. One way or another, nothing lasts forever, and if it repeated forevermore then so be it. 

Reason and Will

Finally!!! A class where I felt that I learned something. Sometimes I feel like as if I just go into class and just listen to people debate how they interpreted the stories and the material but rarely do I ever get the “that’s exactly what the author was going for” sort of thing. I really didn't learn anything from the first group, but the second group! Wow! Great job guys! I honestly found Nietzsche’s works to be rather confusing to me and I am glad I was given the information I needed to clarify the way I interpreted it.

From the discussion of how Nietzsche and Socrates differed I think it had to do with Socrates believed in reason and rationality completely whereas Nietzsche believed that will to power was the essence of life itself.  You need will to survive in Nietzsche’s eyes, but you need reason to survive in the eyes of Socrates. I also think that that is a reason on its own that Nietzsche did not completely agree with Socrates because when Socrates died he surrendered his will for the sake of reason. He choose to not escape from his death or plea for forgiveness all so he did not look like he was going back on everything he ever said. He felt as if everything he said was completely true and he gave his will up to prove a point to the people. And for Nietzsche a person who gives up their will is practically dead anyways.

I believe this also goes against Nietzsche’s views on truth because he philosophizes that there is a realm of truth and being but reason is excluded from it.

“Let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as “pure reason,” “absolute spirituality,” “knowledge in itself”: these always demand that we should think in an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective “knowing”; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our “concept” of this thing, our “objectivity,” be.”

This is yet another thing that I could see the two philosophers viewing differently on. Nietzsche is proposing that truth comes with only the perspective eye. The more view and perspectives we have about a certain thing then the more truth that we will gain about the thing. But reason would argue that there is only one way of seeing something. It either is or it isn’t. There is no other way of looking at the objective truths. But for Nietzsche the more you know about it the more true it can become (in my opinion).

In conclusion I would like to share what I felt about the quote that group two brought up at the very end of class and asked us to reflect on.

“You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”

Other than it meaning clearly what it says, that everyone has a different way of doing things and there is no right way to do something, I believe that this has something to do with the whole finding truth through different perspectives. In a sense I think it is telling the readers who are reading about Nietzsche’s philosophy that what he is saying is merely only a perspective in our quests to find our inner truth. That his way is only one way. We can either take what he says to heart or believe it to be true or merely use it for our overall knowledge. There is no right way to viewing, interpreting, and carrying on about our lives. As one day we will find our own truth through our own will perspectives and with our own will to lead us the way. 

Truth

I just want to take a moment to thank my group for these last few weeks. I know we had a rough time wrestling with this content and we lost two group members in the process, but man it feels good to have our presentation over with. It definitely did not help with the wordiness of the text. I swear I will probably have dreams about some of this stuff in the future from reading it so much. That was the hardest seven pages of reading in my life hands down. Overall I am extremely happy with the way our presentation turned out. Hopefully the rest of the class felt the same way about our presentation.

After dissecting Kierkegaard’s material I see things a little differently. Especially with the way I feel about things. It actually helped me to clarify some of my religious feelings. In a sense I can relate to Kierkegaard seeing as he too was born into a religious family, but he believed in science and objective facts. But at one point he became re awakened and up took his religious faith once again. In a sense that’s where I stand with my religious view. I have many doubts in my religion and I do not really want to be a part of it until I accept the objective uncertainty and take faith in God fully and passionately. It may not be at the age of 25 for me, but perhaps one day it will happen for me. I do not want to go into the House of God and pray if I do not completely believe. I want to go for me, not for everyone who thinks I should be involved in church.

In highlight I decided to share a few quote that I felt kind of wrap up what Kierkegaard was trying to emphasize in this section.

“Inwardness in an existing subject is at its highest in passion; truth as a paradox corresponds to passion, and that truth becomes a paradox is grounded precisely in its relation to an existing subject. Thus the one corresponds to the other. By forgetting that one is an existing subject, passion is lost, and in truth does not become a paradox; but the knowing subject becomes something fantastic rather than an existing human being, and truth becomes a fantastic object for its knowing.”

This all comes back to finding meaning to our life and finding truth within ourselves. Taking a step back and realizing that for us to exist and not just be an existing subject we have to be THE existing subject. It is our choice how we choose to carry on and feel about life. Seeing as Kierkegaard took strong emphasis in the individual this is important for us to know.

 “Objectivity emphasizes: what is said; subjectivity: how it is said.” 

This distinction is important as most of his existential work revolves around this philosophy.

As Kierkegaard explains, there are some things that are rooted in subjectivity and others in objectivity. In subjectivity, the concepts of immortality and religion are directly rooted here. According to Kierkegaard they serve no purpose in the realm of objectivity as they are something that cannot be proved. He makes it distinct that those who chose to seek out the truth in the uncertain being in fact truth get further away from the truth. He uses God and Immortality as his examples seeing as they are both something that cannot be achieved through hard core proof.

I also found it interesting the differences that occur in the absurdity aspect with Kierkegaard versus Camus. Whereas Camus said that the absurdity occurs with the individual struggling against the world, Kierkegaard indicates that the absurdity takes place within the existing being, which the struggle the individual has internally. In a sense I side with both of them, as I believe that it is important to understand that absurdity can take place you against the world and I think that an internal absurdity does in fact occur. I mean, I have internal debates within my mind and the way I feel, but of course absurd things occur in the actual world. So I choose to take a stance in the middle of both philosophers as I find both of their contribution equally important.