Perhaps had Nietzsche seen a direction, a teleology, to life related to our biological evolution toward Godhood, rather than the goalless will-to-power that he saw, he might have then seen the long-term importance of the herd even to the exceptional individual. The leading edge in evolution can and should be singled out, but they can't go forward alone biologically and socially.
The key is to find a way to tell the difference between positive, forward, evolutionary traits in exceptional individuals and negative anti-social traits, or to tell the difference between the evil genius and good genius. Nietzsche concentrated on the damage the herd does to the superman. Human beings are social beings, it is written deeply in our biology, and the individual needs the group as much as the group needs the individual.
Nietzsche was on the right track it seems to me when he spoke from the biological perspective and not from metaphysics, but he didn’t seem to see the real biological advantage behind altruism and the herd mentality, or rather he didn't think the herd morality was healthy or important and he saw it only as blocking exceptional individuals, which seems to be behind his hatred of Christianity, which he saw as only loving the inferior herd.
Altruism has given problems to many thinkers over time, even Darwin. But I think E.O. Wilson has the best insight on it so far: ..."One of the key ideas to explain this has been kin selection theory or inclusive fitness, which argues that individuals cooperate according to how they are related. I have had doubts about it for quite a while. Standard natural selection is simpler and superior. Humans originated by multilevel selection—individual selection interacting with group selection, or tribe competing against tribe. We need to understand a great deal more about that."
Now if we add evolutionary religion to that we are on the way.
No comments:
Post a Comment