Is Modern Society Stealing What Makes Us Human?: A Glimpse Into Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra by The Partially Examined Life

Image by Genevieve Arnold

The pro­logue of Friedrich Niet­zsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathus­tra (1883) intro­duced his notion of the “last man,” who is no longer cre­ative, no longer explor­ing, no longer risk tak­ing. He took this to be the implic­it aim of efforts to “dis­cov­er hap­pi­ness” by fig­ur­ing out human nature and engi­neer­ing soci­ety to ful­fill human needs. If needs are met, no suf­fer­ing occurs, no effort is need­ed to counter the suf­fer­ing, and we all stag­nate. Is our tech­nol­o­gy-enhanced con­sumer cul­ture well on its way to deliv­er­ing us up to such a fate?

In the clip below, Mark Lin­sen­may­er from the Par­tial­ly Exam­ined Life phi­los­o­phy pod­cast con­sid­ers this pos­si­bil­i­ty, explores Niet­zsche’s pic­ture of ethics, and con­cludes that the poten­tial mis­take by poten­tial social engi­neers lies in under­es­ti­mat­ing the com­plex­i­ty of human needs. As Niet­zsche argued, we’re all idio­syn­crat­ic, and our needs are not just for peace, warmth, food, exer­cise and enter­tain­ment, but (once these are sat­is­fied, per Maslow’s hier­ar­chy of needs) self-actu­al­iza­tion, which is an indi­vid­ual pur­suit, and so is impos­si­ble to mass engi­neer. Hav­ing our more basic needs ful­filled with­out life-fill­ing effort (i.e. full time jobs) would not leave us com­pla­cent but actu­al­ly free to enter­tain these “high­er needs,” and so to pur­sue the cre­ative pur­suits that Niet­zsche thought were the pin­na­cle of human achieve­ment.

Niet­zsche’s tar­get is util­i­tar­i­an­ism, which urges indi­vid­u­als and pol­i­cy-mak­ers to max­i­mize hap­pi­ness, and the more this is pur­sued sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly, the more that “hap­pi­ness” needs to be reduced to some­thing poten­tial­ly mea­sur­able, like plea­sure, but clear­ly plea­sure does not add up to a mean­ing­ful life. While we may not be able to quan­ti­fy mean­ing­ful­ness and aim pub­lic pol­i­cy in that direc­tion, it should be eas­i­er to iden­ti­fy clear obsta­cles to pur­su­ing mean­ing­ful activ­i­ty, such as ill­ness, pover­ty, drudgery and servi­tude. We should be glad that choos­ing the most eth­i­cal path is not a mat­ter of mere cal­cu­la­tion, because on Niet­zsche’s view, we thrive as “cre­ators of val­ues,” and fig­ur­ing out for our­selves what makes each us tru­ly hap­py (what we find valu­able) is itself a mean­ing­ful activ­i­ty.

The Par­tial­ly Exam­ined Life episodes 213 and 214 (forth­com­ing) pro­vide a 4‑man walk­through of Thus Spoke Zarathus­tra, explor­ing the Last Man, the Over­man, Will to Pow­er, the dec­la­ra­tion that “God Is Dead,” and oth­er noto­ri­ous ideas.

Episode 213 Part One:

Episode 213 Part Two: 

Mark Lin­sen­may­er is the host of The Par­tial­ly Exam­ined Life and Naked­ly Exam­ined Music pod­casts. 

by | Permalink | Comments (4) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!

Comments (4)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Rene Brauer says:

    Whilst I have no big qualms with Fred­die’s prob­lem descrip­tion, his solu­tion of “cre­ate your own val­ues” seems to me to have some seri­ous flaws:

    First­ly, due to the short­ness of human life the expe­ri­en­tial base that you are draw­ing upon can only ever be one life time. As such, you are bound by your own irra­tional­i­ty, in com­bi­na­tion with your own ignorance.…what oth­er than your own will to pow­er is con­vinc­ing you that you are right? [when every­one around you is behav­ing in a sheep­ish fash­ion?]

    Sec­ond­ly, if you reject con­tem­po­rary val­ues what becomes your frame of ref­er­ence oth­er than your own base desires, i.e. your own ani­mal nature? The ani­mal nature that selects for the sur­vival of prop­a­gat­ing as many copies of itself, NOT how to live a har­mo­nious life with your fel­low men. The sheep use the pre­tense of com­pas­sion to val­i­date their thin­ly veiled ambi­tions as well.…

    Last but not least, by for­sak­ing the mit­i­gat­ing effect that civ­i­liza­tion has on us we return back to ani­mal ani­mos­i­ty. The ratio­nal­i­ty still rec­og­nizes pat­terns, even if they are none…this is sep­a­rate from it becom­ing the rai­son detre for the insur­rec­tion. Fur­ther­more, women seem to only care about suc­cess, not so much about how a man got to that par­tic­u­lar posi­tion

  • Will Peck says:

    How can you rebut a inter­pre­ta­tion of N. With­out read­ing N? What if she is wrong? Then you are wrong. If I rebut you then I am wrong a thread that nev­er ends Rene you don’t seem very bright. I sug­gest you read Niet­zsche is real­ly does­n’t leave him­self open like that

  • Dante Battaglua says:

    This philoso­pher needs to be inspect­ed start­ing from his per­son­al life. If you find that he was not such hap­py fel­low in the way that his human­i­ty was severe­ly affect­ed by his lack of a healthy moral­i­ty, there­fore even his pla­gia­rism of world reli­gion as far as his ref­er­ence to the over­man, when in his attacks on chris­tian­i­ty seem hol­low when he made ref­er­ences to him­self as the cru­ci­fied one, real­ly showed a very con­fused individual.Nature at its core is all good, but man needs to obey to ful­fill his pur­pose, and this should be to live in har­mo­ny.

  • Elsdon Ward says:

    There are the obvi­ous draw­backs to being hap­py and these are large­ly things that are beyond our con­trol. There is not much point in being unhap­py because there are clouds in the sky. Bet­ter to be hap­py that we can see these clouds.

    There­fore to be hap­py we should ignore the things that are beyond our con­trol. We should find con­tent­ment in the way that we do things and not the end result of them. Why be afraid to get out of bed because it is rain­ing. Just stand in the rain and be hap­py.

Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.