Nietzsche Monsters

Black Swan · 21-04-2018 12:18pm #1

Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed "whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." The first thing that came to mind when reading this was the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945. Over 80,000 men, women, and children died immediately in Hiroshima, and ultimately 192,020 died combining instant death and from the effects of radiation. More than 70,000 were killed by the 2nd Nagasaki bomb three days later. Did the Americans become Nietzsche's monsters at the end of WWII?

And in reflecting upon Nietzche today, does it follow that "And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you?"

Your thoughts?

mzungu · 24-04-2018 11:35pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed "whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." The first thing that came to mind when reading this was the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945. Over 80,000 men, women, and children died immediately in Hiroshima, and ultimately 192,020 died combining instant death and from the effects of radiation. More than 70,000 were killed by the 2nd Nagasaki bomb three days later. Did the Americans become Nietzsche's monsters at the end of WWII?

And in reflecting upon Nietzche today, does it follow that "And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you?"

Your thoughts?

One could say that the atomic bombs were really a utilitarian measure. The greatest good for the greatest number. Japan did not look like surrendering so a bloodbath was on the cards either way. If they continued on with the war, then it is likely that many more Japanese (and Americans) would have perished. Question is, would it have been more noble to slaughter more people through run of the mill aerial bombing and ground assaults?

Of course, it has also been said the bombs were dropped primarily as a warning to Stalin. While I am sure that was possibly part of the reason, it was not a deciding factor. I think they had utilitarianism in mind when weighing things up.

Peregrinus · 25-04-2018 12:16pm

"Utilitarian" doesn't necessarily mean "not monstrous", though. The Nazi T4 program for murdering people with learning difficulties and/or mental illnesses was utilitarian, but monstrous. And I'd argue that, even if utilitarian, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also monstrous.

indioblack · 25-04-2018 9:16pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed "whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster." The first thing that came to mind when reading this was the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945. Over 80,000 men, women, and children died immediately in Hiroshima, and ultimately 192,020 died combining instant death and from the effects of radiation. More than 70,000 were killed by the 2nd Nagasaki bomb three days later. Did the Americans become Nietzsche's monsters at the end of WWII?

And in reflecting upon Nietzche today, does it follow that "And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you?"

Your thoughts?

I think it's a fair warning of the danger of becoming that which you oppose.
With the difference that the Americans could step back from the abyss.
War brutalizes and, usually, becomes more brutal.

Peregrinus · 26-04-2018 2:02am

indioblack wrote: »

I think it's a fair warning of the danger of becoming that which you oppose.
With the difference that the Americans could step back from the abyss.
War brutalizes and, usually, becomes more brutal.

Why is that a difference? Are you suggesting that other nations could not "step back from the abyss"?

(For that matter, are you suggesting that the Americans did? It's not clear to me that they did. After all, they did drop the bombs, and they have kept themselves in a state of readiness, and hold themselves free, to do so again.)

mzungu · 26-04-2018 6:11pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

"Utilitarian" doesn't necessarily mean "not monstrous", though. The Nazi T4 program for murdering people with learning difficulties and/or mental illnesses was utilitarian, but monstrous. And I'd argue that, even if utilitarian, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also monstrous.

I agree. It can be used to justify any form of brutality you can imagine. The question is, did Hiroshima and Nagasaki save more Japanese (and American*) lives in the long run? If it is a "monstrous" act, would continuing war and going full hog with a ground war (with the Soviets in tow) and aerial bombardment (minus atomic weapons) have been any less "monstrous", or would it have been worse than that if the casualties were higher?

*This is a given

indioblack · 26-04-2018 9:24pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why is that a difference? Are you suggesting that other nations could not "step back from the abyss"?

(For that matter, are you suggesting that the Americans did? It's not clear to me that they did. After all, they did drop the bombs, and they have kept themselves in a state of readiness, and hold themselves free, to do so again.)

I suggest that the Japanese empire followed a course which they were unlikely to change by their own choice. That direction could be called the abyss.
With the end of the war both sides ceased their destructive activities - the Japanese because they could not continue to do so - the Americans because they had no need to do so.

Peregrinus · 27-04-2018 1:46am

mzungu wrote: »

I agree. It can be used to justify any form of brutality you can imagine. The question is, did Hiroshima and Nagasaki save more Japanese (and American*) lives in the long run? If it is a "monstrous" act, would continuing war and going full hog with a ground war (with the Soviets in tow) and aerial bombardment (minus atomic weapons) have been any less "monstrous", or would it have been worse than that if the casualties were higher?

I don’t know that you can reduce the concept of monstrosity to a simply tot of the number of lives imperilled by different courses of action. Certainly in the western ethical tradition there’s a distinction between attacks on combatants in a “just war”, on the one hand, and the deliberate targetting of innocent noncombatants on the other; the latter is seen as more monstrous. Also, it’s unlikely that the calculation about using the bomb simply totted up likely death tolls; undoubtedly the calculation would have treated the deaths of Japanese noncombatants as of less account than the deaths of American combatants, and a calculation like that is arguably monstrous (and arguably not utilitarian).

indioblack wrote: »

I suggest that the Japanese empire followed a course which they were unlikely to change by their own choice. That direction could be called the abyss.
With the end of the war both sides ceased their destructive activities - the Japanese because they could not continue to do so - the Americans because they had no need to do so.

The Japanese may have “ceased their destructive activities” but the Americans certainly did not; they went on to develop a vast nuclear arsenal, together with the means to deliver it to any point on the planet, to the point where they could destroy all human life on the planet, and to adopt policies and principles under which they held themselves free to do precisely that. The fact that they haven’t actually done it yet doesn’t mean that this isn’t monstrous, or destructive, or that they have “pulled back from the abyss”. I think to pull back from the abyss in any meaningful way they’d have to renounce all this.

indioblack · 27-04-2018 7:30pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t know that you can reduce the concept of monstrosity to a simply tot of the number of lives imperilled by different courses of action. Certainly in the western ethical tradition there’s a distinction between attacks on combatants in a “just war”, on the one hand, and the deliberate targetting of innocent noncombatants on the other; the latter is seen as more monstrous. Also, it’s unlikely that the calculation about using the bomb simply totted up likely death tolls; undoubtedly the calculation would have treated the deaths of Japanese noncombatants as of less account than the deaths of American combatants, and a calculation like that is arguably monstrous (and arguably not utilitarian).

The Japanese may have “ceased their destructive activities” but the Americans certainly did not; they went on to develop a vast nuclear arsenal, together with the means to deliver it to any point on the planet, to the point where they could destroy all human life on the planet, and to adopt policies and principles under which they held themselves free to do precisely that. The fact that they haven’t actually done it yet doesn’t mean that this isn’t monstrous, or destructive, or that they have “pulled back from the abyss”. I think to pull back from the abyss in any meaningful way they’d have to renounce all this.

The OP used WW2, the Japanese and the American use of nuclear weapons to ask the question.
The Japanese war was one of aggression and conquest, the Allies would continue to oppose the Japanese empire and force it to stop fighting.
The Japanese were travelling down the road they had chosen. When it was bluntly obvious to them that their military adventure was over, they surrendered.
America became a nuclear power, and remains one. Does this, of itself, qualify as monstrous? If a nuclear power uses the threat of it's weapon, that might be considered so.
It's not possible to uninvent such a weapon - the best at present is containment.

Fathom · 27-04-2018 11:39pm

Watched "Beneath the Planet of the Apes." 1970 Sci Fi fiction. Humans worshipped The Bomb. Eventually set it off. Destroyed life on Earth. "And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you?" Nietzsche and today's nuclear deterrence? Old song. Kingston Trio: "But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud For man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud And we know for certain that some lovely day Someone will set the spark off And we will all be blown away!!"

Torakx · 03-05-2018 1:19am

The abyss is the depths of the "other".
When we go fighting monsters, we must contend with the abyss and if we spend long enough staring into it, a reflection can be seen of ourselves.
I'm pretty sure Nietzsche would agree that it takes one to know one, and that we all have the full spectrum of human capabilities with regards our actions. Some more than others of course, but it's there.
Nietzsche also wrote " I do not trust a man who does not admit he is murderer within."
Such a person would more likely become a monster, when not recognizing the abyss before they fell into it.
Or better to say, before it caught their gaze in it's own.

These sayings can be applied to that situation with the atomic bombs.
Is this what instigated the Pearl Harbour attack? If so, we can see this idea play out in both sides.
Ultimately it is more useful a saying with regards to the present and the future,to prevent escalating and developing in the wrong direction.
Warring nations were heading down that path, it was just a matter of time before one became the biggest monster of a group of monsters.

Fathom · 03-05-2018 8:05pm

Torakx wrote: »

The abyss is the depths of the "other".

Jacques Derrida's "other?" Or Nietzsche's?

Torakx wrote: »

These sayings can be applied to that situation with the atomic bombs.

America became the Nietzsche "abyss." American political talking points (today) claimed A-bombs saved Japanese lives. Orwell's 1984 "doublethink?" Trump's "alternative facts?"

Torakx wrote: »

Is this what instigated the Pearl Harbour attack? If so, we can see this idea play out in both sides.

Hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children died in Japan after 2 A-bombs. Pearl Harbor had 2,008 naval men, 109 Marines, 218 army men, and 68 civilians lost their lives that day.

Torakx wrote: »

it was just a matter of time before one became the biggest monster of a group of monsters.

Why did America use 2 A-bombs that where very different in construction ("Little Boy" and "Fat Man")? America found an excuse to experiment on live human city populations. Nietzsche's "abyss" staring at itself?

Black Swan · 06-05-2018 1:03am

mzungu wrote: »

The question is, did Hiroshima and Nagasaki save more Japanese (and American*) lives in the long run? If it is a "monstrous" act, would continuing war and going full hog with a ground war (with the Soviets in tow) and aerial bombardment (minus atomic weapons) have been any less "monstrous", or would it have been worse than that if the casualties were higher?

Historians debate whether or not Japan was already negotiating a surrender before the bombs were dropped. Some claim that they would surrender conditionally, but the US wanted an unconditional surrender, and dropped the two atomic bombs to force the end of WWII unconditionally. If the latter case, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki exemplified a Nietzsche American monster.

Fathom · 10-05-2018 11:23pm

Black Swan wrote: »

If the latter case, then Hiroshima and Nagasaki exemplified a Nietzsche American monster.

Revenge for Pearl Harbor.

Black Swan · 11-05-2018 12:03am

Justify the 2nd atomic bomb, or to what extent did it exemplify the "abyss" looking back?

Fathom · 15-05-2018 5:58pm

Black Swan wrote: »

Justify the 2nd atomic bomb, or to what extent did it exemplify the "abyss" looking back?

Add 2-differently constructed A-bombs.

Nietzsche Monsters

Comments