Nietzsche, on guilt and bad conscience
Friedrich Nietzsche regarded bad conscience as “the worst and uncanniest illness, from which man has not to the present moment recovered, man's suffering from man, from himself”, and guilt as the mind's responsive creation, resulting from the evolving concept of accountability for one's actions. Nietzsche drew comparison between the reality of ancient barbarians and the reality of contemporary beings, condemning (almost) all the “certainties” in which modern-day humans had saturated themselves. He explored the origins of both bad conscience and guilt, along with the relationship of the two concepts to civilization and to attaining the ever-exclusive status of “superman”. The self-made suffering of bad conscience and guilt, to Nietzsche, is a human folly, and his philosophy reflects the possibility of advancing to a level of existence in which both of these miseries are obsolete.
In Nietzsche's society, bad conscience and guilt were regarded as consequences of behavior. Today, this view remains very much the same. By acting in a manner which might be perceived as “bad” by people in whom an individual places importance, that individual suffers from pain of the “poorest and most fallible organ” – the conscience. This pain, however, is self-inflicted. In light of this, the suffering borne of bad conscience and guilt is not a consequence of the “bad” behavior itself, but a consequence of a deeply-rooted human mistake—confusing the nature of oneself with the nature of an action. To Nietzsche's disappointment, this mistake is only progressing, perfected by generation after generation with the passing of time.
In the German language, “schuld” is a word meaning “guilt” and “schulden”, “debt”. Although Nietzsche is not one to substantiate meaning with language, he noted this parallel, and concluded that the origin of guilt and bad conscience is the feeling of indebtedness to another being. In Christianity, a devout follower is indebted to adhere to the values created by his religion. In the case he steals, whether it be an apple or a life, he feel intense guilt, which stems from the obligation he has to pay his debts to a divine leader who had sacrificed his life for the sins of others. The sinner had given less than what was given to him, and therefore poisoned himself with a bad conscience. Likewise, a man having an affair feels guilt because of the gnawing knowledge that he is now indebted to his wife, owing her affection as undivided as the affection she gives him.
Nietzsche suggested, however, that guilt and bad conscience did not exist in ancient times. Rather, he described a relationship between creditor and debtor, a relationship in which the debtor agreed to accept the obligation to pay back whatever was given to him by the creditor. If the debtor could not compensate the creditor, he knew, through an unspoken rule, that the latter had a right to inflict upon him physical pain, commensurate in degree to the value of the unpaid credit. In his Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche painted a brutal image of man, describing him as a beast that thrives on feelings of dominance and cruelty. By receiving the “enjoyment of violation”, the creditor devoured a “delicious mouthful, in fact, a foretaste of a higher rank” that was exclusive to masters. In ancient times, punishment was the raw result of an action which had a “bad” effect upon another person. It was a form of paying back, only in pleasure—a different kind of commodity. After the transaction took place, there were no hard feelings, no guilt, and no bad conscience. Both parties were once again on equal footing, sharing the understanding that no debts were owed and no further pain would be inflicted. In their view, justice had been served. Society, however, continued to progress, and complex feelings such as guilt and bad conscience inevitably accompanied the increasing depth of humankind, a new breed of species which insisted on living in civilized communities and abolishing animal instincts such as those exercised in debtor-creditor punishment. Describing the origin of bad conscience and guilt, Nietzsche wrote, “In this area, that is, in the laws of obligation, the world of the moral concepts “guilt,” “conscience,” “duty,” and “sanctity of obligation” has its origin—its beginning, like the beginning of everything great on earth, was watered thoroughly and for a long time with blood”.
With the advancement of society, which Nietzsche saw as the tyranny of a minority over the barbaric majority, came a forced movement into civilization. The philosopher described it as “that change when [humans] finally found themselves locked within the confines of society and peace”. This “peaceful” society devalued the instinctual animal-like behaviour, rendering it useless. All that the primal man had previously known became extinct to him—killing, hunting, embracing his cruelty; all qualities had been stripped of value in this foreign and civil way of life. Nietzsche wrote that humans, or “unfortunate creatures”, “no longer had their old leaders, the ruling unconscious drives which guided them safely”, and were consequently “reduced to thinking, inferring, calculating, bringing together cause and effect, reduced to their 'consciousness', their most impoverished and error-prone organ!”. It is this quote from Genealogy of Morality that attributes the origin of guilt and bad conscience to society's effect upon man, rather than to punishment.
The effect of this sudden change of lifestyle was drastic for mankind. Like a continuous flow of water into a balloon with limited capacity, animal instincts boiled over the human efficiency to suppress them. Nietzsche's concept of Verinnerlichung, or the deepening and intensifying of man, demonstrates the response. Human beings, as a species, were forced to take all the cruel energy that was previously aimed at enemies and gloriously released in blood-stained wars, and cram that energy into themselves. In Nietzsche's words,
“The man who, because of a lack of external enemies and opposition, was forced into an oppressive narrowness and regularity of custom impatiently tore himself apart, persecuted himself, gnawed away at himself, grew upset, and did himself damage—this animal which scraped itself raw against the bars of its cage, which people want to “tame,” this impoverished creature, consumed with longing for the wild, which had to create out of its own self an adventure, a torture chamber, an uncertain and dangerous wilderness—this fool, this yearning and puzzled prisoner, became the inventor of “bad conscience.””
The result was, and still is, an ugly inner life, contaminated with self-torment, self-judgement, and the marination of oneself in regret and contemplation of right and wrong.
In The Gay Science, Nietzsche harshly declared, “God is dead”, reflecting his observation that God had begun to lose influence over Europeans. Possessing no belief in religion or the afterlife, this assertion was uncomfortable to anyone but Nietzsche himself. Noticing a fading religious devotion in many people, he felt the need to create a being more worthy of idolatry. And so he created a replacement, Übermensch, the Superman. Idolizing this Superman would be different from idolizing God, in that Superman would not ask to be praised all the time, as does the Christian God. Superman would not adhere to a cookie-cutter set of rules and values, choosing instead the values which hold importance to him, specifically. He would impose no “rights” or “wrongs” upon those looking up to him, and he would overcome himself, as opposed to overcoming others. The biggest difference between Superman and God would be that any human being could become a Superman, in turn, metaphorically becoming God. Superman would understand that he lives in a transient world, and he would embraces this; yet he would sticks to his own interpretation of what is good and evil. He would command a master morality, and embrace his animal instincts, yet balance them with the understanding that he can overcome his passions. Superman is beyond bad conscience and beyond guilt, for he has won the struggle with his inner self and directed his energy outward, rather than leaving it to rot inside and cause him torment. In his essay on Superman, Nietzsche offers an uncharacteristic bit of optimism as he asserts, and even encourages, individuals to overcome their inner struggles, advising, “will a self, and thou shalt become a self”.
The Webster Dictionary lists “belief” as the antonym of “reality”. To Friedrich Nietzsche, the two words are very much synonymous. Realities are fleeting, therefore they are no less credible than mere beliefs and perceptions. The reality shift from barbarianism to civilization created a set of negative feelings we now suppress within ourselves, battling them whenever we are plagued by “guilt”, or “bad conscience”. We have accepted our reality as such, and yet we are in no way restrained from exploring alternative states of being. Nietzsche wrote, “the overcoming of self is only a means, not a goal”. When the goal is an existence free of guilt and bad conscience, the self-tormenting nature of mankind is only articulated by the scarcity of those willing to embark on the journey.
turnnoffyourmind
titsay
gracieabrams
