DrRocket (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} drrocketanski) wrote,@ 2009-03-19 14:55:00 |
|
A political note inspired(?) by Nietzsche
The will to power becomes most powerful when present in the weak/decadent. After all, they have only their wits, no "normal" mode of power (say, money). And, of course, the one with cunning and knowledge will often bring down those with temporal power - for the possession of temporal power dulls the wits, bringing the possessors into a position of dependence upon those "normal" modes of power (like money).
The one with his wits will therefore appeal to some eternal principle to attack those with temporal power, for this is his only recourse. Of course, this would be some kind of morality. Whereas those with temporal power are only able to control in a limited way (for, by definition, their power is limited/temporal), the weak/decadent have an eternal principle and therefore seek to control in an unlimited way (for when does an eternal principle not apply?). (Note: unlimited moral power must relate to an entire way of being, rather than to a specific act. Thus, murder being illegal is, though a moral principle, not an unlimited moral principle. Rather, only a principle that categorizes certain groups of people as evil/inferior and others as good/superior is unlimited. Thus, slavery in the U.S. was defended by a principle that black people were somehow inferior to white people.)
Nietzsche claims that the nobles eventually bought into the morality of the weak, even championing it. Of course, the nice thing about this is that, because they championed an eternal idea, they could hold on to their temporal power without guilt. Just agree and give a nod to the morality, indeed even cheer it, and you are free. Like the drinking pastor, mentioned by Kierkegaard, who preached very efficaciously on behalf of prohibition, and received his payments in alcohol, the noble who hates nobility is welcomed by the weak, and even encouraged to retain his nobility.
But in this we find the danger of total slavery. For the noble who champions the hatred of nobility, not only retains his own nobility, but can bring down all other nobles (that is, those who might threaten his power). He has retained his limited power, but has also acquired the unlimited power of morality. He is not only king, but high priest. Limited slavery becomes unlimited slavery.
Surely, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but absolute power is never acquired through money or governmental office, but through the power of an eternal principle that stands on your side (thus, the First Amendment). When the general consensus is that one is defined as good by virtue of one's position/situation/race/class, and someone else is defined as bad by virtue of his/her position/situation/race/class, then we are beginning to confer unlimited (moral) power upon the "good" group (and, of course, every group needs a champion/leader). The door to unlimited slavery has opened.
The will to power becomes most powerful when present in the weak/decadent. After all, they have only their wits, no "normal" mode of power (say, money). And, of course, the one with cunning and knowledge will often bring down those with temporal power - for the possession of temporal power dulls the wits, bringing the possessors into a position of dependence upon those "normal" modes of power (like money).
The one with his wits will therefore appeal to some eternal principle to attack those with temporal power, for this is his only recourse. Of course, this would be some kind of morality. Whereas those with temporal power are only able to control in a limited way (for, by definition, their power is limited/temporal), the weak/decadent have an eternal principle and therefore seek to control in an unlimited way (for when does an eternal principle not apply?). (Note: unlimited moral power must relate to an entire way of being, rather than to a specific act. Thus, murder being illegal is, though a moral principle, not an unlimited moral principle. Rather, only a principle that categorizes certain groups of people as evil/inferior and others as good/superior is unlimited. Thus, slavery in the U.S. was defended by a principle that black people were somehow inferior to white people.)
Nietzsche claims that the nobles eventually bought into the morality of the weak, even championing it. Of course, the nice thing about this is that, because they championed an eternal idea, they could hold on to their temporal power without guilt. Just agree and give a nod to the morality, indeed even cheer it, and you are free. Like the drinking pastor, mentioned by Kierkegaard, who preached very efficaciously on behalf of prohibition, and received his payments in alcohol, the noble who hates nobility is welcomed by the weak, and even encouraged to retain his nobility.
But in this we find the danger of total slavery. For the noble who champions the hatred of nobility, not only retains his own nobility, but can bring down all other nobles (that is, those who might threaten his power). He has retained his limited power, but has also acquired the unlimited power of morality. He is not only king, but high priest. Limited slavery becomes unlimited slavery.
Surely, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but absolute power is never acquired through money or governmental office, but through the power of an eternal principle that stands on your side (thus, the First Amendment). When the general consensus is that one is defined as good by virtue of one's position/situation/race/class, and someone else is defined as bad by virtue of his/her position/situation/race/class, then we are beginning to confer unlimited (moral) power upon the "good" group (and, of course, every group needs a champion/leader). The door to unlimited slavery has opened.
