Merit, virtue and the direction of culture

Quentin P. Taylor suggests that both Nietzsche and Burke thought that merit and virtue are the main standards for assessing individuals. But then the question becomes, how do you define merit and virtue? Nietzsche had a bit of a problem with evolution because he thought it lowered the value of man to merely define the “fit,” etc. But how does one define what is fit? Nietzsche thought high culture should be beyond the stress and strife of daily life, but sociobiology has taught us that everything is related to evolution, including high culture.

I think the highest goal of humanity is our evolution to Godhood, and merit, virtue, and culture, low or high, are defined from this perspective. When Godhood is defined as the highest evolved truth, intelligence, beauty, merit and virtue, then culture and individuals are assessed from this perspective.

High and low culture are means to the end of the perpetual evolution of man, and there can be different means of facilitating this end. Nietzsche's “aristocratic radicalism,” was one way, Burke's “conservatism” was another. We need to use the state, not be enslaved by the state, as someone said. I tend to prefer Burke's conservatism merged with the evolution of life to Godhood. This is religiously synthesized in the Twofold Path.  Religion is the long-term method I prefer, whatever the state.

It is the Spirit-Will-To-Godhood that is behind all culture, activating material life, which is then shaped by evolution, and high culture would affirm this foundational worldview. Education would not be deadened by trying to make productive money-making citizens only, or merely stopped dead at examining and dissecting the world as science does. High culture adds to nature with living evolution moving toward Godhood. The arts poetize these images.  I know of no better way for mankind to live.