The Elements Surrounding Human Lives - Literature review Example

The faculty of wonder that developed in the psyche of myriads of brilliant philosophers primarily arose due to the concern on truth and the meaning of life. Friedrich Nietzsche, an extremely profound thinking philosopher, claimed that the elements surrounding human lives are dynamic and not absolute; so, in seeking for the truth, one must not consider origin but instead contemplate on the genealogy of morality. Fabricated truths of morality produced by religion, according to Nietzsche, are fixed and grounded on a finite meaning and essence, which are not in actual reality. Morality, just like how Darwin described human evolution, is a fluid and adaptive concept. A gifted philosopher of the postmodern period, John Cottingham, argued against the premises put forth by Nietzsche on the arbitrariness of the meaning of life. Cottingham believed that the things and meanings that go beyond human understanding are actually knowable controlled and manipulated by an omniscient agency or force. Human existence in relation to the immense universe can be explained by an absolute truth. He cleverly contended that the Darwinian evolutionary theory had been applied to every facet of human life thus removing the leeway of having a permanent and supreme answer to questions such as “Why are we here?”, “What is my life’s purpose?” thus eliminating the importance of obedience to dogmatic morality. In his book entitled On the Meaning of Life, Cottingham addressed specific scientists such as Aristotle to denote that scientific knowledge drastically replaced teleology in its preeminence in explaining the meaning of human existence. Unlike Nietzsche, who was labeled as an existentialist, Cottingham strongly believed in Hume and Descarte’s assumption that a Supreme Being purposively concealed unfathomable meanings beneath the visible natural and physical world (Cottingham p. 6). These buried meanings are essentially pinpointing the fundamental nature of human existence. For Cottingham, a meaningful life is attainable only if individuals will align themselves to established moral codes. Meanings that are unknowable can be possibly grasped only through humans’ effort to realize their moral objectives. Moreover, he fervently believed that a solitary all-powerful and invincible entity would extend a hand to uphold order among all vital things in the world so that humans will appreciate the need to strengthen one’s goal towards a moral life, which is also meaningful. Cottingham detests Nihilism and meaning based on the evolution of humanity which Nietzsche promoted for the belief that only an absolute moral principle has the power to bestow meaning to life; in simple words, morality that is strictly anchored on the teachings of God (Metz p. 259). Nevertheless, Cottingham attempted to take into consideration the life of those people who chose to live in accordance to their animalistic instinct, which is being aggressive and egotistical at the absence of restraints. He pondered whether this immoral kind of life, exemplified by his concept of the “committed torturer”, has the right to become meaningful. Rather than directly answering the question, Cottingham stated that a meaningful human life is an open and integrated one whereas the life of a corrupt such as the torturer is most likely torn apart. He then goes on to say that a meaningful life must at all cost follow the path drawn for humans to traverse and not the trail of remote individual choices (Cottingham 2003). On the contrary, Nietzsche maintains that the true meaning of life does not lie on the mercy of an unseen and immeasurable Supreme spirit; instead, he eloquently argued that morality, just like humans for Darwin, evolve in a gradual manner. This morality confers meaning to human existence; yet, before meanings would emerge, existence must first materialize. Nietzsche, unlike Cottingham, did not believe in God. He contested the belief that prior to human life there were already well-built meanings embedded in the natural and the spiritual worlds. Nietzsche would definitely defend himself against the criticisms of Cottingham by reiterating his original standpoint on the significance of morality. The concept of Nihilism that Cottingham largely loathes was actually plainly defined by Nietzsche as the complete rejection of moral standard in the modern world. Reading excerpts from Nietzsche’s philosophical treatises would most probably give a first impression that he advocated for the abolishment of moral principles. Yet, just like Cottingham, Nietzsche supported the survival of morality through a precise understanding of its genealogical origins. He merely desired to clarify that morality played a different role at different times; that a meaningful life is relevant to the dominant moral codes of the incumbent period. On the other hand, regarding Cottingham’s notion of the committed torturer, Nietzsche perceived immoral acts as a form of strength and power. In his essays, Nietzsche described two kinds of morality: the “knightly-aristocratic” and the “priestly” or “slave”. He defined the former as a type of morality that characterized rulers and conquerors whilst the latter is portrayed by the act of self-denial (Nietzsche sec 6-7). For Nietzsche, slave morality is not productive since it removes humans away from their true form or capabilities by stressing on the wickedness of others. Suppressing individuals’ inner self, or their human nature, is a sign of weakness. People in a self-denial process not only inhibit their fullest potentials but also stagnate their movement towards a meaningful life. So logically, following this premise, it is safe to assume that Nietzsche thought that a committed torturer is in reality living a good life since that person did not consciously suppressed his/her inner life but instead obeyed the calling of the self’s yearning. Likewise, Nietzsche presumed that morality is dictated by the will to power of those who are strong enough to coerce their will to another being. The interpretation of what is good and what is evil is substantially associated to the will that has the greatness to bend it towards a particular meaning. For instance, the idea of “good” had been governed by the barbarians who emanated strength and fine health and the opposite which is evil had been awarded to those who chose to live a life of mediocrity (Nietzsche sec 2). During this time, a committed torturer would definitely be considered a morally upright individual considering the fact that the “good” barbarians were notorious in their cruel and brutal acts. But if placed in the contemporary period, the torturer would absolutely be condemned and consigned to capital punishment because of his/her unlawful and immoral behavior. To simply put it, Nietzsche argued that there are myriads of ways in looking at a particular phenomenon which could be considerably swayed by the will to power of the powerful. In this essence, Nietzsche maintained that the constant ticking of the clock produced both communal interests and individualistic pursuits that interchange as morality evolve (Gaarder p. 377). Nietzsche’s defense against Cottingham’s God-based morality is successful at two levels. First, he was able to balance his criticisms against morality by stating that he is not on the abolition of moral standards but instead he simply advocated a clear understanding of the surfacing of morality so that individuals would have a profound thought on how to attain a meaningful life. Secondly, he expressively marked the difference between a powerful and feeble life by distinguishing a subsistence that is allied with the individual personas and one that is fastened on self-defiance or the suppression of the inner self. For thousands of centuries, bright minds have been navigating outside the reaches of the human knowledge. The question on the meaning of life is actually a dead-end. It is just convenient to accept that what our physical frameworks can grasp are the things that pertain to the meaning surrounding our reality. Those that we cannot perceive are rather interesting but the fact that multitudes of the great minds who worked on tirelessly to acquire the answer to these surreal entities just generated more questions than answers is a vivid proof that humans have limits. Just like Nietzsche and Cottingham, the quest for the answer to the meaning of life did not yield any luck, but instead generated vibrant discourses among the world’s remarkable thinkers throughout time. Works Cited Books Cottingham, John. On the Meaning of Life. London: Routledge, 1993. Gaarder, Jostein. Sophies World. New York: Farrar, Strauss, & Giroux Inc., 1991. Online Sources Metz, Thaddeus. Baier and Cottingham on the Meaning of Life. South Africa: University of Witwatersrand, viewed 26 June 2008. http://disputatio.com/articles/019-4.pdf Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. Leipzig, 1887. http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/Nietzsche/genealogytofc.htm Read More