Respectability=nobility?

Affable

Are the distinguished in society the most respectable?
Is the politician more respectable than the street criminal?
There is good and bad in the respected, the distinguished.
There is good and bad in the 'feckless' or off the rails people.
I'm arguing though, that far from abandonment or so-called fecklessness being a sign of moral inferiority as some of the distinguished may argue, it's actually a sign of greater, not lesser humanity. Sure the man who has repressed(consciously through free will or simply as an innate part of his make up) his violent instincts in pursuit of intellectual excellence or consideration of moral causes and battles may consider that he's done so for noble reasons, or he may not. But even if he believes the former, in my view he's got it wrong. I mean to say, that despite the intent, violence channeled into a moral vision or intellectual excellence is about power and nothing else. It relates to the anarchy more noble than civilisation query I posted a while back. It actually betrays a calculation whihc equates to a lack of humanity to supress ones instincts especially into moral issues too much. We are all fighters at core. We've all heard the idea of the noble savage, and the rebel cultures that thought they had more humanity in them than the 'respectable' ones.

anyway, a bit of ra,bling, carry it on and see what you think.

Joe1919

There is a common thread that runs through philosophy. Plato discusses the idea of 'spiritedness' (thymos) that's part of the soul and present in all creatures. (he talks of the spirited dog in the republic). Mandeville states
"We are all born with a Passion manifestly distinct from Self-love; that,
when it is moderate and well regulated, excites in us the Love of Praise,
and a Desire to be applauded and thought well of by others, and stirs us up
to good Actions: but that the same Passion, when it is excessive, or ill
turn'd, whatever it excites in our Selves, gives Offence to others, renders
us odious, and is call'd Pride."
Hegel in his Lord/Bondage dialect claims that we will fight to the death for recognition. Dostovskys underground man stated that people are more irrational than rational and he spends a week planning to give a 'nudge' to someone because he was passed on the street by that person and nor recognised. Nietzsche states what motivate us in not the will to survive but the 'will to power' and I thing this includes the will to power over others.
We are not egotistical creatures because egotism does not take into account our obsession for recognition or respect from others. People will die for recognition. That was what the noble class and nobility was originally all about; duelling and jousting, the nobility were originally a class of warriors who earned their respect with their ability to use the sword.
In modern language, it could be argued that our desire for respect is 'biologically primative', i.e. We are hardwired to desire respect or in Hegels language, we always see ourselves in terms of a reflection in the consciousness of others.
If its any consolition, this desire seems to dwindle with age. As we get older, we perhaps get a little wiser and our tendency to see ourselves as others see us diminishes. But we also possibility loose some of our spirit when this happens.

Joycey

Joe1919 wrote: »

Dostovskys underground man stated that people are more irrational than rational and he spends a week planning to give a 'nudge' to someone because he was passed on the street by that person and nor recognised.

Is that book worth reading? Just finished "The Gambler" recently, thought it was good, it comes with the underground man in the same book. Loved Crime and Punishment...

Nietzsche states what motivates us is not the will to survive but the 'will to power' and I think this includes the will to power over others.

Well, yes, but I think your misunderstanding it slightly. I interpret him as having a kind of ambivalent notion of the "human". While he talks about humanity and progression from beast-human-overhuman and so on, at other times he attempts to tear down the distinction between the humans and the non-human. Simply having the everyday notion of "power" over other humans in the form of "respectability" is not what Nietzsche meant IMO.

So, will to power is not just a drive to gain ascendency, however that may come about, over other humans, but is actually much more fundamental then that.

At one point Zarathustra is having a conversation with Life, and in the rhetorical climax of the chapter she says "I am that which much overcome itself". All life is essentially will to power. The highest form of will to power is what Nietzsche calls "valuation", namely the creation of systems of good and evil, or of narratives to explain the world, but especially valuation, that is the key.

Hence his belief that "philosophy" (which I understand broadly as good poetry, the creation of religion etc) is "the most spiritual will to power". Where the whole "I am that which must overcome itself" statement fits in, is that at one point Nietzsche symbolises the code of morality or system of valuation which each culture has as "the tablet of their overcomings", so when Life herself says "I am that which must overcome itself", I think she is referring to this creation beyond oneself.

While it is true that having power over a people which is maintained through having a large army in support of you, say, is will to power, Nietzsche describes it as the most base kind, the least "noble". The power is only maintained till the tyrant dies or whatever. If you look at some system of valuation such as Christianity, or Nietzsche's work itself (though it took a while), then you see that they have shaped/affected far more people, and in a more fundamental way then simply controlling them physically.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra may be my favourite philosophy book, well worth reading. Anyone whos read any other Nietzsche: what books of his would be worth checking out next?

We are not egotistical creatures because egotism does not take into account our obsession for recognition or respect from others.

Well I think it does actually, depending on your definition of egotism. If you take a Dawkinsite view of things then you, as a vehicle for your genes reproduction, are a representative of their egotism, so to speak.

Joe1919

Joycey wrote: »

Is that book worth reading? Just finished "The Gambler" recently, thought it was good, it comes with the underground man in the same book. Loved Crime and Punishment...



Well, yes, but I think your misunderstanding it slightly. I interpret him as having a kind of ambivalent notion of the "human". While he talks about humanity and progression from beast-human-overhuman and so on, at other times he attempts to tear down the distinction between the humans and the non-human. Simply having the everyday notion of "power" over other humans in the form of "respectability" is not what Nietzsche meant IMO.

So, will to power is not just a drive to gain ascendency, however that may come about, over other humans, but is actually much more fundamental then that.

At one point Zarathustra is having a conversation with Life, and in the rhetorical climax of the chapter she says "I am that which much overcome itself". All life is essentially will to power. The highest form of will to power is what Nietzsche calls "valuation", namely the creation of systems of good and evil, or of narratives to explain the world, but especially valuation, that is the key.

Hence his belief that "philosophy" (which I understand broadly as good poetry, the creation of religion etc) is "the most spiritual will to power". Where the whole "I am that which must overcome itself" statement fits in, is that at one point Nietzsche symbolises the code of morality or system of valuation which each culture has as "the tablet of their overcomings", so when Life herself says "I am that which must overcome itself", I think she is referring to this creation beyond oneself.

While it is true that having power over a people which is maintained through having a large army in support of you, say, is will to power, Nietzsche describes it as the most base kind, the least "noble". The power is only maintained till the tyrant dies or whatever. If you look at some system of valuation such as Christianity, or Nietzsche's work itself (though it took a while), then you see that they have shaped/affected far more people, and in a more fundamental way then simply controlling them physically.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra may be my favourite philosophy book, well worth reading. Anyone whos read any other Nietzsche: what books of his would be worth checking out next?



Well I think it does actually, depending on your definition of egotism. If you take a Dawkinsite view of things then you, as a vehicle for your genes reproduction, are a representative of their egotism, so to speak.

As I have already indicated, the will to power/ need for recognition may be 'Biological Primitive and this is as fundamental as you get.

Yes, The Underground man is as great read (about 100 pages) but I recommend reading the second section first and then going back to his long heavy monologue if you find this first section too heavy.
I was trying to contribute to this post in terms of the original posters question (Respectability=nobility?) and I think the Underground man fits quite well into the category of someone who is highly resentful due to lack of self-respect and recognition. The first line of the book is "I am a sick man.... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man."

Nietzsche certainly tried to develop Hegel's master/slave dialogue further in his 'Beyond good and evil' in terms of claiming that the whole western mode of moral thinking was that of 'slave morality' that had come into the Christian tradition via the slaves in Rome and was based on the resentment of the slaves against their masters.
What can be argued is non-recognition or defeat leads to an 'unhappy consciousness' (Hegel) and the human deals with this in different ways. He can become angry and spiteful like the underground man. Alternatively, he can accept his defeat, even glorify his defeat and claim that this defeat and lack of recognition is good. This can lead to the whole idea of the glorification of suffering (asceticism), a denial of the will that is common in both Christianity and Eastern religions. However underneath this asceticism are resentments and a repressed 'will to power'. (Nietzsche?) This latent resentment and will to power can erupt in the form of the martyr, who is the ultimate ascetic and will give up his life and will receive recognition for this. (The tyrant dies and his rule is over; the martyr dies and his rule begins. - Soren Kierkegaard )

My comments on Egotism is that a simple psychological model that does not take into account our relationship and need for the 'Other', (if for no other reason than to affirm our own 'self') is incomplete. Manderville quote "We are all born with a Passion manifestly distinct from Self-love;" infers that we have a passion that different and possibly greater than self love. Nietzsche 'will to power' is probably similar in that it is a desire even greater than the desire we have for our own bodies. This is an important issue in terms of the original discussion on self respect. Why would an egotist need other peoples respect to be happy? (leaving practicalities aside). Why do we need affirmation, respect etc.