In After Virtue, MacIntyre primarily discusses the implications of Nietzschean philosophy with some comparisons to Aristotelian philosophy. In order to comprehend Nietzschean philosophy, one must first understand what the Übermensch is. The Nietzschean man, the Übermensch, and ‘the great man’ are all similar names for someone who doesn’t look to the community for virtues, but looks for them inside himself (257). By not learning from the examples set out by others, and isolating himself, he doesn’t find any good outside of himself.
We know that in order to be virtuous according to Aristotle, one must fulfill the prerequisites of virtue; one of which is community. The Aristotelian point of view is that people find virtue in those that surround them; therefore; someone who has no community to live in cannot have virtue. Virtue is linked to the relationships that one has with others, but the person who is essentially “the best” and cannot learn anything from anyone else, and must look to himself as the person to strive to be. ‘The great man’ is someone that is his own self sufficient moral authority (258).
MacIntyre later breaks down the Nietzschean ‘great man’ by describing it as a pseudo-concept. MacIntyre believes that the Nietzschean stance is not an actual alternative to individualistic livelihood, but the representation of the creation of a true alternative (259). He doesn’t fully support one side or the other, but he does show the short comings in each philosophy. He indicates that he enjoys the notion of a liberal individualistic viewpoint, but doesn’t fully agree with Nietzsche’s stance. He implies that though the Aristotelian tradition is intelligent and rational, but it is not one that he would choose. His final thoughts are that he likes and understands both arguments, but presents the third option of Marxism. When true Marxist socialism does not become turn to democracy or tyranny, then the Nietzschean ideal would work perfectly.
What is thought provoking is why MacIntyre chooses not to make a concrete decision on which philosophical ideal he follows. Is it possible to reconcile the differences between the Nietzschean and Aristotelian ideals and combine the two to create a single coherent idea or are they so inherently different that they cannot be reconciled? Is MacIntyre’s inclusion of the Marxist point of view simplify or complicate the differences between the two? MacIntyre provides a unique perspective on the works of these two philosophers shedding new light on old ideas.
5 comments:
To expand, Macintyre concludes by talking about the present and how we need to “survive the coming ages of barbarianism and darkness” (263). He says that we need to start building local forms of community so that we can maintain our “civility, and the intellectual and moral life,” (263) which in Aristotle’s terms would be the life of the temperate and virtuous. Stating that the tradition of the virtues will give people hope to survive, I assume Macintyre refers to Aristotelian tradition. In that case, would this mean everyone in the community is virtuous? That can’t be, because Macintyre states that barbarians are already running the government and for Aristotle, people who have political power are most likely to be virtuous, while barbarians can never be; so we must not be virtuous either. Does this reinforce Aristotle’s view on how it is practically impossible to be virtuous? Does this mean we will fall to the darkness?
When MacIntyre first mentioned Nietzsche's "ubermensch," I immediately thought of Dostoyevsky's novel, "Crime and Punishment." For those who haven't read it, the main character, Raskolnikov, attempts to become the ubermensch. He commits two brutal murders and swiftly spirals downwards as he tries to escape punishment. I thought Raskolnikov really illustrated what MacIntyre meant when he wrote "[i]t represens individualism's final attempt to escape from its own consequences." Raskolnikov just suffers more and more as he tries to flee the repercussions of his actions, as he tries to continue to convince himself that he is a "superman." Raskolnikov suffers a great darkness for most of the novel.
Furthermore, Raskolnikov becomes isolated from his community, by acting out against his family, his friend, and his love interest. MacIntyre writes that "to isolate oneself from the communities which find their point and purpose in [understanding goods], will be to debar oneself from finding any good outside of oneself," (258). It is not until Raskolnikov comes to terms with his community, that he is able to find the beginnings of peace. So it seems to me that Dostoyevsky would share MacIntyre's stance on Nietzsche's "ubermensch" as well.
One of the things that did not make sense to me was how it is possible for “the great man” to be unable to learn anything from anyone else? Is this because the great man knows everything there is to know? Surely, this is not the case. Then maybe it’s that the great man is incompetent of learning anything from anyone else because of his failure to maintain ties with his community. Also, I am having a hard time understanding how “the great man” can have any sense of moral authority when he does not even have any relationships with a community and is in isolation.
To address the question you raised about combining Nietzschean and Aristotelian ideals, I think that both trains of thought conflict in such a manner that does not allow for such a union. Nietzsche's Übermensch can in a sense be seen as nihilistic. This fundamentally does not fit with Aristotle's principles that virtue, happiness for example, is achieved through conforming to certain standards(such as not having a kid with a hammer stuck in its head). Any views on virtue that the Übermensch has are ones the Übermensch has created himself. Whereas Aristotle sees the path to virtue as already mapped out, Übermensch would say there is no predetermined path thus creating their own.
We dwell upon how we view the Great Man to be almost of supernatural ability in terms of his intellect. Maybe the Great Man does not know everything about everyone and every craft, however it may be possible that the great man knows everything there is to know about his craft. If the great man is a politician, then we can therefore say he knows everything about politics and will know what is best for his community. Would that not make the Great man virtuous? But what if the Great man were to make a decision that would prove harmful to his community, surely that would no longer define "The Great Man" as truly great, but corrupt. The definition of a Great Man was troubling to me, and is still unclear.
Post a Comment