The Obstacles of the Whole and Free Man
What is the true potential of the species known as “man” and how can this species achieve it's full potential? Philosophy often enquires and debates that which drives man and that which holds the species back from achieving their full potential or the full realization of the nature of humans. The progression of communication, communal relationships, the advancements made in technology and the increase in necessary workers has added pressure on the human race to properly manage its growth as they move towards their full potential. One can go about looking at humanity from different perspectives, whether sociologically, economically, psychologically, philosophically as well as evolutionarily, in order to form an opinion as to where humans are headed in the future. This paper will discuss the growth of humans through an economic and sociological perspective in regards to the full potential of man, taking into account both Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx's ideas on the subject. This paper will discuss Friedrich Nietzsche's view of herd morality and the problem it causes for humans. Karl Marx provides the more comprehensive explanation of the two and describes a more realistic view of the obstacles that humans face. Marx's theory is not only more clear but also provides a concept that may help to transition humans from where society is and where it is heading. In order to persuade I will discuss capitalism and how it has fostered the growth of what Marx's called alienated labour. By acknowledging the causes of alienated labour we can see a more informed discussion of the obstacles that humans must modify in order to advance and reach their full potential. Both Nietzsche and Marx do not provide an absolute answer of how to overcome the obstacles that human face as well as what will the product of overcoming these obstacles and therefore it is only through inference an educated assumptions that we may be able to assess the obstacles at hand and move forward.
Friedrich Nietzsche takes a primarily sociological hierarchical view in his discussion of the intellectual and moral growth of humans. He takes into account an “aristocratic” population who are able to create the norms and rules of their society. Nietzsche also explains that these people of higher economic status are whom the lower economic status are compared to and that this comparison is what creates the opposition between people. Similarly, Karl Marx critiques the political economic state, that humans have found themselves, and explains that obstacles that come from a capitalist society cause a sense of alienation to occur in the work place and that this separation of man from work is what stands in the way of human advancement.
First, a discussion of Friedrich Nietzsche's perspective on what keeps man from reaching their full potential. According to Nietzsche, what keeps humans from achieving their full potential is the way they perceive the concepts of good and evil. The classification between “good” and “evil” has been modified as society has changed across time. Good has been characterized by Nietszche both as someone who has power in the master morality stage, Nietzsche first stage in The Genealogy of Morality; while in his second stage, known as the slave morality stage, a good person is characterized by someone who is weak and patient. Converse to the master morality stage, those that have power in the slave morality stage are considered the “evil” people in society, because these people hold the power of sociology and moral ideals in their grasp, however rarely is it used to deconstruct the guilt and resentment that is felt in the “good” and patient people (16). Nietzsche explains that the evil parts of society are after thoughts to the good nature of man and is merely a product of comparing that which is good in a person to that which is evil. In Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality, the “evil” humans in the slave moral stage, who is able to create the rules of society and ensures that the participants of the community abide by them, are known as the powerful “blonde beasts”, which Nietszche explains are meant to be seen as predators, leaving the “good” humans to be seen as prey (58). Nietzsche believed that this had been a product of the loss of the hunter and gathering nature of past humans and that this instinct to kill or harm others for sake of survival remained. This instinct is now frowned upon by society that expects intellectualized thought over animalistic instincts. This retraction of the human instinct Nietszche says, produced a sense of guilt in humans that he calls bad conscience.
It seems as though Nietzsche believed that the primary obstacle that keeps humans from being a truly fulfilled species is his idea of bad conscience that arose from humans turning this instinctual energy inward and using it against themselves. He discusses how by turning these instincts inward they become latent because society deems these instincts obsolete and “evil”. This bad conscience leads to mediocrity because people spend so much time focusing on their negative qualities that they cannot become masterful and he explains that people because of this are “self-denying” (59). This bad conscience is what turns “man against himself” and is what causes “Hostility, cruelty [and] pleasure in persecution” it also causes “change” and “destruction”(57). Nietzsche believed that for humans to achieve their full potential somehow they must rid themselves of this guilt, perhaps by a “revaluation” of their morals, their behaviour and rules of governance (16). Although I would have to agree with Nietzsche when it comes to there being a guilt that is prevalent in a slave moral society I do not believe that it is a bi-product of a hunter and gathering society. I argue the source of this guilt is caused by societal pressure that suggests there is a constant need to acquire things and that this guilt stems from not being able to attain that which society sees as signs of prosperity and power. This is something that both Nietzsche and Marx discuss: how a person is judged or valued based on their “assessment of utility” and the capital in which they acquire (11).
Karl Marx explains that in a capitalist society the most important task of man is to acquire capital or wealth. This necessity to acquire capital leaves man vulnerable to working for the attainment of wealth and or property. As the world progresses, and as human work, they build and creates more products that require maintenance in order to remain useful over time. At first, the intention of creating things, through factories as well as industrialized factories, was to create products for the greater society and that the labour it took to create and maintain such products were made in communal expectation. However, in a capitalist society, the bourgeoisie see the profit of labour, as they own most products that are created by the proletariat class. The proletariat and the bourgeoisie are affected by this detachment with the production of capital. For the proletariat they labour tirelessly to create products in which they themselves will never see the profit of, and as for the bourgeoisie they miss the availability to partake in the creation of products that give them their wealth. The separation between labour of humans and the products they create is what Marx called Alienation of Labour. Alienated labour is what Marx suggests is what keeps humans from reaching their full potential, or even growing. This Alienation of Labour causes man to be relatively mechanical in their work as they lose most of the passion to create the product and therefore only apply time to that which is necessary and expected of them, and not much more. By only partaking in work that is expected and necessary, humans are used as a commodity or as if a robot. Overtime, man becomes mechanistic and apathetic of work and therefore becomes resentful of working. However, if humans do not perform their duty they are seen as not only an inconvenience, adding more work to the community, but also seem incompetent and unable to partake in work. Walking the streets of Toronto, Ontario or any large city for that matter, one can see this objectification of work at play. As some find themselves on the street begging for money, unable to work due to mental illness, lack of support or inadequate education there are also those with capital walking by as if they had not seen the person under blankets beside their favourite coffee shop. This inability to participate in society is not only discussed in a sociological and economic perspective but also in a psychological perspective as it appears in the most commonly used diagnostic manual in western society. For every disorder according to the DSM IV a certain criterion remains a constant and is a necessity in diagnosing someone with a mental health condition, symptoms of a mental illness must “cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning” (DSM-IV, p. 327). Marx's ideas would suggest that this is the product of the commodification of man.
Marx believed the Alienation of Labour is what keeps man from achieving his full potential and that in order for humans to move forward out of capitalist society a revolution would have to occur, often described as the rise of the proletariat. Capitalism forces men to be dependent on one another and because of that individuals lose the feeling of control and therefore their existence seems to lie outside of themselves. However, for an individual to be more driven and feel the need to create more innovative and progressive ideas they must feel as though they will benefit from their creation or they would somehow feel a sense of intrinsic desire from the product of their labour.
Research indicates that having a sense of autonomy at work is what provides a person the highest level of satisfaction. Having increased autonomy allows workers to feel as though they have power and control of the product of their labour and this in-turn increases motivation at work and perhaps even increases one's confidence. Having larger amounts of responsibility allows humans to better use their personal assets more flexibly and therefore their skills may be best harnessed (Simmering). Having a sense of independence rather than dependence seems to foster more of a creative thought, for example if all writers and painters were told to complete their art at the will of someone else the work would seem less unique and thoughtful.
I, like Marx, believe that it is primarily the fault of alienated labour that humans are unable to progress to their absolute potential. Nietzsche explains that we fall victim to our perceptions of good and evil and that these ideas are what limits our ability to harness humans full potential. The perceptions of good and evil not only are very individualistic but are always changing, which causes me to be sceptical that the hostility and guilt that is of man is merely caused by our past necessity to hunt and this instinct being internalized after years of no use is what holds man back from progressing. Marx hints that perhaps that what ultimately can prevent the obstacle that stands between man and the full realization of their potential is the difference between “need” and “common need” (39).
While discussing this paper with two seemingly homeless people at the Ontario Northland Bus Station roughly a week ago a woman said that “the worst thing that man ever invented was the word mine” and perhaps there is some truth in that. For example, the person I discussed earlier that walks passed the homeless person on the street, thinking that perhaps a homeless person is useless as they provide no product from labour and that they should simply “get a job”. The issue also being that the man who is more financially stable is unwilling to part from the money that is the only product of his labour. In that case who is the good person and who is evil? Is it the poor man on the street providing no products for society or is it the rich man that steps over him apathetically? I believe only Marx has answered this question for me, and that is why I choose to say his discussion of the obstacles that humans face more valuable. It is neither the homeless man nor the apathetic man that is at fault, it is the normative beliefs of a capitalist society. In the beginning the idea of industrialized work was to be more efficient and to produce more products with the hope of helping a larger group of people with less work required. I can not help but think the obstacle preventing the full realization of the human species is a need for humans to have a distributed amount of wealth that allows more so the fulfilment of needs rather than desires. To lean down and help those that have less capital, and acknowledge that in helping a fellow human a person in some way is helping to break down the obstacle that stands between man and their full potential. By helping someone humans may feel they have control in their lives and may even provide a sense of autonomy that is needed to help them feel unalienated from society and not just the alienation of labour.
Works Cited
Marx, K (1977). The Early Writings 1837-1844. In D. McLellan (Ed.) Selected Writings (pp. 76-97). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nietzsche Friedrich (1998). On the Genealogy of Morality. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company
Simmering Marcia J. Autonomy. Encyclopedia of Business, 2nd ed. Reference for Business (Advameg, Inc.) Web. 21 February 2011. http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/ABud/Autonomy.html
No comments:
Post a Comment