It seems to me that Nietzsche dismissed morality and “the herd” as being only the machinations of the herd against the elite, saying such things as “the more dangerous a quality seem to the herd, the more completely it is condemned.” (The Will To Power). But is that not a healthy response to something that is dangerous to ones existence? The altruism of the herd has a definite biological foundation, selection takes place primarily at the group level, and secondarily at the individual level (see E.O. Wilson's latest). Yes, it is very important to find a way for the best to become creative leaders and not to be lost in the “herd,” but the elite only survive within a group.
So what social morality or political philosophy does a biological orientation best affirm for groups and individuals? If we try to examine our answers not first with metaphysics or politics---because these things do grow out of biology--- then we may see that small states, or virtual ethnostates, and nearly independent regions, that is, ethnopluralism, seems to best fit human nature. We are still kin-centered, gender defined, age-graded, hierarchical, ethnocentric, even xenophobic, this has not changed even though political philosophy has tried to ignore it. Common sense tells us that even supermen can't accomplish these things alone.
All groups and states need to be included---time and again the world has moved against and often destroyed any group claiming to be the only noble or chosen group. We all can rise together in the most natural ethnostates, protected by some sort of light federalism. Cooperative competition is not only possible but necessary. Then evolutionary religion can ground this worldview in our long evolution toward Godhood in the cosmos. It's not merely the will-to-power of lone geniuses that needs attending, it is the Spirit-Will-To-Godhood activating all of us that needs attending.
No comments:
Post a Comment