#jonathan glover

[thereversedhierophant]

[theeditorreads]

The Philosophy of Mind by Jonathan Glover (Editor) - A Review

My Rating: 3/5Genre: Philosophy/PsychologyPages: 162 (Paperback)Publisher: Oxford University PressDate of Publication: 13 January 1977 Series: Oxford Readings in Philosophy Review Reviewing this one in a manner different from my other reviews because1) This is a scholarly book that I had no business reading and now I am going to review it.2) I checked out two books from the Sahitya Akademi…

View On WordPress

[gravitascivics]

A WILL-TO-“WIN”

A pair of former postings, “Nietzschean Power of the Will” (February 26, 2019) and “Implications Related to Self-Creation” (March 1, 2019), provides a description and explanation of how the ideas of nationalism – the ideology the current president claims to be his – is an outgrowth of individualism.  While the nationalist argument does not represent a straight version of Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy, his ideas are incorporated into what nationalists believe and overlap what they strive to accomplish.

         Here are a few lines from one of those postings,

… [T]hose who adhere to nationalism do not necessarily adopt all of Nietzsche’s view and his construct does not pretend to be an all-encompassing theory or philosophy.  What he was striving for is an unshackled sense of direction for individuals to follow.  Leadership, so directed, will not be constrained by religiosity, traditional values, or even reductionist bits of scientific knowledge.  And what are the implications of these ideas?  There are many …

         As one’s reason is diminished, emotions become even more central than is usually the case.  Intuitive thinking becomes central.  As such, one is much more apt to rely on prejudices.  Impulsiveness is more apt to be one’s mode of behavior.  Less reflection is probably more likely to occur. “He [or she] acts from his [or her] gut” will become the mode of action for such motivated subjects.  

The reader is encouraged to click on those postings to more fully understand from where this posting is coming.  

Of central concern here is Nietzsche’s argument that, one, populations can be divided between the strong – those relatively few, talented individuals whose will to power leads the them to do what is necessary to secure that power – and, two, these same individuals are not hampered by traditional moral restraints – such as restraints imposed by religious beliefs.  And this latter claim can serve a civics teacher in that it provides an unabashed view of individualism that that teacher can use as a counter argument to a federalist view.

Jonathan Glover[1] provides an insightful review of Nietzschean ideas. He points out various beliefs that constitute what most Western societies claim to support.  Generally, the values stem from the Judeo-Christian tradition that argues for altruism.  Westerners generally believe it is good to help others.  They espouse that value even if they don’t live by that value all the time.  Nietzsche saw that bias as debilitating.  He argued that such an argument was only a cover for mediocracy.

This “bad” conscience instilled on generations after generations of young people a hurtful message; that is, that in doing so the message relegates them to subordinate positions in the pecking order of society.  Instead, Nietzsche admires those who can see this foolishness for what it is, a slave mentality.  He admires those who can see beyond the hoax and unleash their will to dominate.

He did not soft sell the consequences of such politics.  This blog has often described what happens when one attempts to disregard the interests of others, especially to advance one’s own interests. Some form of revenge is a definite possibility and if done often enough, it is an inevitability.  If one expands this reality over a polity and over time, the result is that the power structure will need to spend a lot on policing services to maintain order.

So, not only would rights be trampled but order would be a top level, expense item and one can note that authoritarian or totalitarian regimes spend a great deal on security forces and on other tools of oppression such as prisons, weaponry, and surveillance.

Nietzsche marveled at nature and its constant struggles for survival among animals. This, he believed, was the fate of humans no matter how much “civilization” attempts to deceive itself into believing otherwise.  Glover writes,

Struggle was not merely to be accepted, but was also noble.  Zarathustra [Nietzsche’s fictional character] says ‘You should love peace as a means to new wars.  And the short peace more than the long … You say it is the good cause that hollows even war?  I tell you: it is the good war that hallows every cause.’  Nietzsche admired the products of the struggle for survival.  Before the struggle was mitigated by modern society, it produced a noble version of man, a beast of prey who might inspire fear but who also deserved to inspire respect.  Modern European man, after centuries of Christianity, is a ‘measly, tame, domestic animal’.

         Christian morality’s rejection of the law of the jungle had almost ruined the human species:  for Nietzsche, it was more than time for that morality to be overturned.[2]

This blogger finds Nietzsche to be interesting in his honesty.  No, he, this blogger, does not buy into any of the philosopher’s argument, but he does not find himself wondering what Nietzsche was trying to say, although the work of Glover is appreciated.  And if this blogger were presently teaching high school students, any presentation of Nietzsche would be couched in a lot of language that would invite argumentation.  A concern of his would be whether or not a review of this material would be used to rationalize immature behavior.

There is more to Nietzsche’s views and they will be taken up at some future date. What the reader can ask is which political leaders on the national stage exhibit Nietzsche’s ideals by being out-and-out exemplifications of his mentality.  This blogger can think of some and it would be interesting to see if students would agree and discuss what should be done about their influences.

[1] Jonathan Glover, Humanity:  A Moral History of the Twentieth Century (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999).

[2] Ibid., 15-16 (emphasis added).

[ciarajoyce]

📖Must I feel personal hostility towards the soldier I kill in war? If I feel sorry for him as a possibly reluctant conscript, does this alter the morality of killing him? Suppose I feel hostility towards civilian supporters of the war but not to soldiers forced to fight it? Does this make killing civilians right and killing soldiers wrong?

Causing Death and Saving Lives, by Jonathan Glover💯

I loved every single chapter of this book!!🌈

Being passionate about Ethics, there could have been no better gift 💕

Thank you so much, Olly!

[wwprice1]

It's early, but it's hard to imagine I'll see a better tweet today!

[callipygianspud]

I was not ladylike, nor was I manly. I was something else altogether. There were so many different ways to be a beauty.

Jonathan Glover in A Home at the End of the World (Michael Cunningham)

[dallasroberts-blog]

[dallasroberts-blog]

A Home at the End of the World (2004)