So there I was, just planning to storm through another endless AP Euro packet when I got to a few pages taken from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. In the excerpt, he brutally criticizes practically all of Western philosophy for assuming that which is ineffable must necessarily result from some higher order above man and that that order is generally good. He goes on to point out that in a different situation, a prophet could interpret such an order precisely the opposite way and glorify to the utmost what we generally know as evil. As per the title of the book, Nietzsche proclaims that the Ubermensch is "beyond good and evil," which succinctly means that he is unencumbered by the blinkers of such artificial constructs and instead understands the true essence of life, the universe and everything. (I couldn't resist throwing that in there.)

The people who compiled the packet (of historical primary sources) included this excerpt because they wanted the student reader to understand Nietzsche's role in criticizing his society and its excesses, both material and intellectual. But what jarred me the most was an idea that seemed to have been included in the packet only because it was in the midst of Nietszche's rant. He makes the scathing claim that philosophers (I get the sense he focuses on his contemporaries, but many of the bastions of the West are no doubt included) write, think, and pose "Perhapses" based on their personal biases. I see one facet of his argument as the idea that because Western thinkers as a whole begin with the assumption of concepts like self-consciousness and free will, their results are never truly legitimate; this is relatively easy to swallow. A little bit more startling is the consequent implication that those who develop philosophies based on morality are essentially developing their own personal biases based on a belief in a system of values that has no basis in the real nature of the world. I could write for several more paragraphs about the kind of fear and dread caused by seriously contemplating whether Nietzsche is right, whether we have completely wasted our lives tied to a foolish ideal that ultimately will not make a difference either way or that has no worth in and of itself.

But I set out to write about something a little bit different. Nietzsche's particular criticism--about (bad, though predominant) philosophy consisting of little more than a series of "Perhaps" conjectures backed by little more than a personal bias--struck me especially strongly at the moment because I realized I had always known this and recognized this but had managed to simultaneously ignore it. The most thinking I have ever done in the area of philosophy is for my English research paper about fear, and I have been aware, at least at some level, that I pretty much started with some basic principles of Eastern thought (e.g., reincarnation, oneness of the universe) and then directed my thought process along the lines of what sounded interesting, appropriate, or fitting to me. Sure, I recognize that Nietzsche's belief in the non-existence or, more properly, irrelevance of higher order is also a bias, though one rooted in scientific examination of humans and the universe. But I got to thinking about all of the ramifications of his criticisms, and I realized how much of our so-called critical thinking, especially that which we undertake in school, is based on what feels right to us or what aligns with our experience or what fits us as individuals. We are, in fact, encouraged along this path, to revel in our melting pot (I guess chef's salad is now the term more in vogue) of intellectual subjectivities. We may be thinking outside of the box, but can thought ever be both free and meaningful if it is just a collection of "Perhapses," even if it magnificently shows off our uniqueness and specialness and wonderfulness?

I'm starting to see some of the contradictions inherent in Nietzsche's position, though that's probably because I read so little of his work and understand, I'm sure, less. It seems like he might be just as dogmatic or narrow or biased in his iconoclasm. But rather than trying to tackle that right now, I want to explore a little bit more about the fact that we--as a society and even a system of education--comfortably ignore the extremely critical question of absolute meaning or truth. It's not that we've chosen the wrong answer; it's that we are discouraged from seeking to find an answer in the first place. We operate under the assumption that whatever ideas we come up with have enough significance for our purposes, and we leave it at that. I'm not claiming that all people should stop conjecture or anything extreme like that. But isn't it at least a little bit unhealthy to engage in a self-deception of such magnitude and to such a degree that we fail to acknowledge the existence of a conflict at all? Why the fuck don't we care anymore about truth or whether it even exists? That's important, isn't it? Right?