We might not have the right to assume the existence of transcendental objects, as Nietzsche believed, but I think we do have the right to assume the existence of highly evolved material and supermaterial objects evolved in the cosmos. We can assert the right of the material over the spiritual and still allow supermaterial Godhood. This is nearly a scientific fact, evolution proceeds from the simple to the complex, from unconsciousness to consciousness, and supposedly superconsciousness, with backward steps along the way.
We also have a right to assume “things in themselves” by refusing to play the games of philosophers. The object does not need the support of human definition, it does just fine on its own. Definitions and formulas have become Gods in themselves. God is lost when God is rejected as a material object, then meaning becomes lost in trying to define God or Being as a non-object. The soul was once thought to be material (Lucretius?, the Carvakas of India ?)---which it is---and definitions of the soul went down hill from there. No wonder nihilism arose in this lost intellectual world.
Nietzsche defined morality only as being an antidote against practical and theoretical nihilism (“The Will To Power”), but morality is developed naturally, sociobiologically, as a method to aid in successful survival and reproduction. Morality hypertrophied can be seen as creating the values for attaining the zenith of successful survival and reproduction, which is Godhood.
When is “ought” not “is”? All things human, such as culture and morality, are essentially biologically derived. We ought to survive and evolve because life and evolution is what is. The written law of ought harmonizes with the natural law of is. What bestows real value on men and the universe? We are evolving to Godhood materially and supermaterially, and we ought to harmonize with that goal.
No comments:
Post a Comment