Nietzsche once said: “What does
not kill me makes me stronger.”
Whatever he meant to say through
this quote, I think it well reflects Nietzsche’s attitudes to life – i.e., the
unbending determination to overcome obstacles and seek active
self-transformation to become a superman.
Here are some of the quotes from
his literary masterpiece, “Thus Spoke Zarathustra.”
“Upwards: - in spite of the
spirit that drew it downwards, towards the abyss, the spirit of gravity, my
devil and archenemy.”
“And with tears in his eyes he
shall ask you for a dance and I myself will sing a song for his dance: a
dancing and mocking song on the spirit of gravity...”
Note the word “gravity.” The pull
of gravity is so powerful that any attempt to escape its influence is
essentially meaningless. You can only expect to hop several times off the
ground and the gravity will never set you free. Nevertheless, the
existentialist Nietzsche never stops dancing. He may be dragged down again and
again but continues to reaffirm his will to life through the constancy of his
fights. In this respect, this dancing described by Zarathustra is a tearful
moral victory. The fate is so much more powerful than you are, which is the
reason why any Schopenhauerian pessimists will stop resisting and sigh in
helplessness. However, for Nietzsche, it was precisely his finitude in front of
the fate that added greater aesthetic, poetic beauty to his bloody ongoing
fight against it. Nietzsche’s superman is a superman not because he can
exercise some supernatural talent or power to fend off the mighty fate. Rather,
it is the continuation of his fight that makes him a superman; he carries on
despite his awareness of his smallness. (In this respect, I discover a similarity
between Nietzsche and Confucius because both of these guys stubbornly pursued
what could not be accomplished.)
Lao Tzu was also acutely aware of
the brutality of fate. He said, in Chapter 5 of the Tao Te Ching, that “Heaven
and Earth are not generous. They regard all things as offerings.” This ancient
Chinese sage had no idea of evolution or natural selection but clearly
understood the brutality of nature in regard to human survival on earth. How
would Lao Tzu respond to the fate, then? He simply says:
“Who can (make) the muddy water
(clear)? Let it be still, and it
will gradually become clear. Who can secure the condition of rest?
Let movement go on, and the condition of rest will gradually arise.”
will gradually become clear. Who can secure the condition of rest?
Let movement go on, and the condition of rest will gradually arise.”
Although Nietzsche might have
criticized Laozi as too idle a person, the way of wu-wei (doing
nothing) is more profound than it superficially seems. Lao Tzu is arguing for
deliberate (if not spontaneous) indifference to problems that you cannot work
out. Do not disrupt your tranquil by obsessing over things that cannot happen
otherwise. I believe this way of wu-wei may be one possible answer to
Nietzsche’s amor fati.
Another possible response from
Lao Tzu is what I think resembles a Hegelian totality that subsumes the
negative. This peculiar totality grows larger and larger by even absorbing
antitheses. (A difference between Hegel and Laozi may be that while Hegelian
philosophy is mostly restricted to speculative thinking, Lazoi’s philosophy
relates the principle of the tao to human psychology and statesmanship.) While
Nietzsche would actively and willfully fight the negative, a Laozian sage would
wisely circumvent a negative event and learn to gradually coexist with it. It
can be said that even as he dies, he learns to harmonize himself with this
reality by achieving oneness with the universe through this eventual tragedy
(his death).
Nietzsche’s
personal life was mostly painful and tumultuous. Though he might have lived a
life of a superman according to his definition, even his most ardent readers
should be cautioned against pursuing his prescribed way of life too literally.
808 views · View
Upvoters · View
Sharers
Can reason exist without free
will?
Let us discuss this question from
an “analytic” point of view (i.e., from the viewpoint of a supposed analytic
philosopher or, more precisely, a wannabe amateur philosopher like myself).
The above question can be
rephrased to the following proposition: “Reason can exist without free will.”
This proposition likely suggests that there is at least one type of reason or
person/entity having the power of reason that exists independently of free
will. Assuming that there is no free will and considering that reason does
exist, one can naturally decide that the truth value of this propositional
statement is TRUE – i.e., the proposition is simply correct. However, since
nobody has ever decisively shown that there can be no free will, we will assume
for the sake of meaningful discussion that free will does exist (in this case,
free will applies only to humans). Then, what does “free will” exactly mean in
this context?
If someone exercises free will,
it means that he does something the way he wants to. However, because
determinists will claim that this very want or desire originates from some
preceding causes – whether we can have knowledge of them or not – we will
assume that this free will entails the notion that there is something about us
humans that can make decisions independently from all the stimuli/events that
happen outside or inside of us (the “outside” meaning external events happening
to us, like sensory inputs; and the “inside” meaning, for example, some
biochemical occurrences in our brain, etc) – despite the fact that human
thoughts are only enabled by the working of the material brain. Simply put, we
all have some inner core that makes a rational judgment with little
influence/intervention – if there is any – from the things that are external to
the core. In this case, the only cause of the inner core – which some may call
a “soul” – is itself. (Again, although this is disputable, I will dismiss the
viewpoint of determinism for convenience’s sake.)
The “reason” mentioned by the
questioner most likely indicates the ability of human beings to think unlike
animals. For example, the power of philosophy – and I don’t think animals can
philosophize at all – is that it enables humans to think out of the box. Unlike
a bull that always dashes towards a red cape, humans have the discernment to
analyze why a particular event occurs. In addition, notwithstanding many
evolutionary models that explain the behaviors of a human agent, not every
human trait can be reduced into the terms of evolutionary theory; in fact, some
of the evolutionary explanations may have committed an error of hindsight bias.
If we humans can act the way we
want to because we have free will and at the same time have the ability to
reason, this easily leads us to surmise that there may be a close relationship
between the two – namely, free will and reason.
Then how can we distinguish
between those that have free will and those that do not? It is my bold
assumption that every human being has a free will unless s/he is in a coma.
Then how can we identify the existence of free will exercised by the others? It
is hard to say. I am only inclined to say that you can say that someone has
free will if you feel like s/he is a real human being.
It is my belief that we can
easily tell whether someone that is talking to us is a genuine human being. We
have some ability to discern a real human being from any potential artificially
made human being that was only designed to closely mimic the behaviors of
humans. As Slavoj Zizek notes in his book, “How to Read Lacan,” some ETs that
appear in a film are very close to us human beings but are different in very
subtle ways. This difference does appear to exist, but we cannot quite
definitively describe the difference. Simply because we cannot perfectly
verbally describe something does not mean that the “something” cannot exist at
all in principle. We humans, although we cannot quite lay out some concrete
proof for every event that happens, often have a consensus on what can be
reasonably described as a cause of a particular event despite the lack of solid
evidence. Historical events, for example, can be explained reasonably well
based on common sense though we are not sure if this method is comparable to
the rigor of science.
Because we have not seen anybody
– or animal – that can reason like us but does not have something within him
that makes us feel or think that he has “free will,” as of yet, I personally do
not think that “reason” and “free will” can be separated from each other
(although this idea is debatable.) In addition, the reasoning power that may be
showcased by artificial intelligence, however similar it may appear to be that
of humans, will be in a way subtly different, I believe. It is my bold belief
that the missing “gap” between machine and humans cannot be bridged through
artificial means.
Our
reason may be something that belongs in the “divine” – i.e., something that
cannot be reduced into deterministic calculus. Therefore, I personally conclude
that “human” reason cannot exist without free will. (Please visit my blog
at: http://taoprep.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment