Christian Archetypes Vs Christian Values
The famous psycho-analyst Carl Jung once said: This remarkable quote has always stopped me in my tracks. As someone who grew up not only immersed in biblical stories but who also spent much of my youth memorizing large segments of the New Testament, this quote means a lot to me now. Not just because I'm familiar with the Bible, but also because I had eventually come to a point when I was younger, where I eventually questioned the biblical literalism of my youth.
The view of what some call "scientism" ("reductionism" or "materialism") had always seemed way too simplistic to me. Although when younger, I sometimes envied people who could take that path and just be done with the immense problems/paradoxes/headaches of psychology and the Bible (in the same way that others insist on literalist views like creationism, etc), by the time I had come into my adulthood, and after having had such a Bible-imagery-immersed upbringing, I could see that such simple "solutions" were in fact just not going to cut it anymore.
And so after finding the Jungian concept of "archetypes", a whole new world of potential understanding was validated to me, and I then became even more grateful that I hadn't turned my back on those stories that had previously become such a deep part of me.
And of course Jordan Peterson has also been a very helpful contributor and popularizer of Jungian archetypes.
But what are archetypes?
The word can be broken down into two different parts: "arche", and "type", or rather "ancient types". Or more specifically, ancient psychological/subconscious "types" or "patterns" or "motifs" (recurring subjects or themes) that lie deeply embedded in the human mind, or "subconscious", as Freud first described.
A good example of this is the ancient archetype of the snake/serpent. A prominent figure in the Genesis account of the creation of humanity, it is also common in many other creation myths and stories.And when I use the word "myth", I should be clear to say that I don't mean "false" (which is a very 'reductionist' popular meaning of the word). To me now, there are many true "myths", but just not "true" in the literal sense, but rather they remain "true" in the sense that they convey profound truths about our world, and about our shared human condition.
Essentially, the idea of "archetypes" (particularly in the psychological field) suggests that the human mind is, like it or not, deeply embedded with these "ancient types/motifs". And our religious texts are in fact acknowledgements of such motifs already there.
But as I have already written in another post, a problem typically with the explanation of the concept of "archetypes", particularly as explained by Jung and Peterson, eventually presented itself clearly to me. And this problem (inevitably?) pointed me back to another author: Friedrich Nietzsche. For it was indeed Nietzsche who first made distinct/clear an issue that actually supersedes even the extremely helpful topic of archetypes, namely, the problem of values.
Considered by Jordan Peterson to be a fatal error, Nietzsche claimed/believed that the problem with humanity was not just that us humans lacked a psychological/scientific understanding of the archetypes that lie deep within us, but that humans are in desperate need of a serious REVALUATION of the VALUES that often are associated with those very archetypes.
A more nuanced reading of Nietzsche reveals that, unlike many modern atheists, he wasn't opposed to, for instance, understanding the archetypal story of Genesis as profound metaphor. Nietzsche aimed his contrarian guns rather at the value judgments typically associated with the Genesis story; particularly the idea that humans are "evil" or "bad" for "eating the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil" (whether one interprets that story literally or not).
People (religious people in particular) typically make a "value judgment" (along with the holy book) about "eating the fruit" from the tree, and Nietzsche's whole project seems to be an effort to set up a clear counter-movement against this value judgment; hence his last attempted project called "An Attempt at a Revaluation of All Values", before he lost his mind.
Whether or not one agrees with Nietzsche on the value of this pursuit, is at the moment, besides the point. The initial point is just to show that this was indeed his goal. And reading "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" makes that more clear.
In the "Genealogy of Morals", Nietzsche went into to detail as much as he could (at the time) regarding the evolution/development not of the biology of humans, but rather, the evolution of our psychology. And more specifically, something that our psychology was (and still is currently) dominated by, namely, what he called our "bad conscience".
And for Nietzsche, that bad conscience was most clearly solidified and given expression to, within Christianity.
And that is why, in his book "The Anti-Christ", more than ever before in his writings, he went to the task of outright attacking Christian values.
He considered it a tragedy that people would get rid of Christian dogmas, and yet hold onto to the morality that had always been associated with those dogmas. He disdained those who thought themselves to be "good people" after they got rid of the belief in God (as if, after getting rid of religion, the idea of "good" or "evil" is even coherent... for Nietzsche, it's not).
He had a lot of respect for Dostoevsky, for instance, who was more honest in his assessment of the moral problem:
And although Dostoevsky himself embraced Christianity (which Nietzsche did not), Nietzsche at least respected his recognition of the fundamental problem facing mankind.
And so Nietzsche's whole project (particularly in "Zarathustra" and "Transvaluation") was to blaze a trail towards NEW VALUES, that one day humans would learn to "will backwards" and liberate itself ("On Redemption", Zarathustra) from it's self-loathing.
And although Carl Jung never faced head-on the "problem of morality" as something that needed to be solved (in the same way Nietzsche had), there was still yet a quality about Jung that authors like Alan Watts admired; namely Jung's lack of moral judgements of other people.
And it was in this sense that Carl Jung shared with Nietzsche his vision that morality (and moral judgements) was something to be overcome.
With Carl Jung, there was a "twinkle in his eye" that let you know that, whatever your dark side was, he knew acutely that he had the potential for the same darkness. And he also seemed to be quite aware of Nietzsche's saying that "a little darkness is needed to see the stars".
And it was in this general context and demeanor of non-moralizing that Jung developed his concept of archetypes. He offered to the world very valuable insights about man and his psyche.
So instead of having to throw away the book of Genesis (and many other Bible stories) as something that is at odds with science, there is now a new way open to the reader to consider profound underlying truths about humans, our development, and our psychology.
The question of whether or not a literal snake talked in a literal garden of Eden all of a sudden now becomes a silly question (whether answered yes or no).
To quote TS Elliot:
The question is now: If we no longer take Genesis literally, what is the meaning of all the archetypes that we see there? What is the meaning of the snake, of "Adam and Eve", of the "garden", and of "being banished"? What is the meaning of Cain and Abel? Of Noah and the Ark?
And more to the point... Can we discuss these things without making any value judgements or condemnations? Can we discuss "eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" without having any condemnations of Adam or of mankind in general?
Is it actually possible to make a sharp distinction (and even antagonism?) between: CHRISTIAN ARCHETYPES and CHRISTIAN MORALITY?
If I could sum up the project of "The Anti-Christ" by Nietzsche, THAT would be it.
Covid 19(84) and the Crisis of Meaning
As Nietzsche once observed:
We are now witnessing this in real time, and for those who have managed to not get caught up in the hysteria, and who have studied the data, it is now rather obvious.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not one to deny that "Covid-19" (so-called Corona Virus) is real. On the contrary, I think it's quite real, and it has affected countless numbers across the globe (and I would support any efforts to quarantine the elderly, even though my own grandmother has it and has no symptoms).
But after watching this unfold for the past while, and actually diving down into the hard data (that is available), one thing is almost certain: our response to this virus has been off-the-walls disproportionate to the actual threat. The locking down of society, and the almost total destruction of the economy (and massive plunging into unheard levels of debt), and the Orwellian/dystopian actions of government and police across the globe, are not at all reasonable in light of what the science actually says about how deadly this virus is.
As many critics (both scientific and laymen) are now coming out and saying: "the cure is worse than the disease". There is simply no scientific evidence (yet) that things like "social distancing" (enforced alienation) even help prevent the spread of the virus at all, not to mention the total infringement of basic civil liberties that have been such an central part of the freedom of "the west".
Something has seriously gone suddenly awry, and for those who have actually looked into the data, Covid-19 is starting to look like Covid-1984.
These are truly terrifying times. What the hell is going on?
It has gradually become clear to me that this isn't really about a new corona virus spreading across the world (which is really just a slightly more virulent than a bad flu season, which is, on average, a serious problem for the elderly with pre-existing conditions, and almost zero danger to the young and healthy).
It is my perception now that this is really about avoiding another problem... one much more deadly and problematic. And this same problem also happened at the beginning of the 20th century, before two world wars. As Nietzsche said before the 20th century about his contemporaries, that they were a people that "no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect". (Will to Power)
In reality, this is a crisis of meaning that has been a long time coming (or rather, a lack of meaning), and this virus has simply provided an opportunity or pretext for countless numbers of people to virtue signal their "heroism" for being willing to "stay home" and "keep a distance" for everyone's "health and safety". Doctors and nurses and police are now "heroes" who are working on the "front lines" for everyone's well-being.
Yes, this is a sort of "war fever" that seems quite similar to the war fever of the early 1900s.
And politicians are basking in the limelight and attempting all manner of power grabs to fuel their narcissistic egos, all while looking like "great men" for being so concerned with everyone's "health and safety" (as if they actually care).
And media outlets are all but consumed by this virus and are desperate to be your guide through these "unprecedented" times (reporting every single death every single day, without being honest about the "comorbidities" the victims had. Yes, Sam Vaknin is right. This is a massive opportunity for narcissists and opportunists to seize power, and with a population that is now almost totally cowed into submission by the relentless fear-mongering of the media (and the people's own hysteria).
In reality, this is a great opportunity to lose sight of the real age-old problems in life, and superficially focus on "staying safe" (as Nietzsche prophesied, the "religion of comfortableness"), instead of the real problem of finding and living out the meaning of one's life. In fact, this crisis is a great opportunity to help you ignore those big age-old problems (and the payout in supposed "heroism"-acknowledgement from your mutually terrified citizens, will be great).
Yes, thanks to this virus, instead of dealing with the hard problems, we can all run away from them, and shut down the global economy, empower corrupt politicians, and help usher in Orwell's 1984.
You can now just end all your pain and all the hard questions of life, and join the government and all your friends, and just shut down the world.
The truth is....this crisis has been coming for quite sometime now. Humanity as a great mass has been standing on the edge of either a breakthrough, or a breakdown. We live at a truly extraordinary time in history, one fraught with danger, and yet still, with so much potential.
In these times, instead of knee-jerk reactions against apparently "stupid" (and we really have devolved to epic levels of stupidity) people for putting up with so much encroaching dystopia, I've been asking myself a question: Now that I've come to see that things are not as they seem, what is the meaning of this crisis? And what is the meaning of people so blindly clamoring for more government control and less personal responsibility?
I am indeed very sympathetic with people talking of rising up and fighting against the new enforcements of corrupt politicians and police, but I also want to understand what is underneath.
And as I discussed above, I believe that this is a problem of meaning. But more specifically, it signals a tipping point, or exhaustion point, in humanity's search for meaning. Not only are people tired of searching for meaning (which has obviously been the case for a while now as our society and entertainments are increasingly vacuous and empty of things that matter), but it seems that we are at a point that people actually want to totally shut down having even the freedom to pursue one's own meaning individually.
For the sake of "safety" and "well-being" (which is really just a virtue signally pretext), we actually secretly desire to shut down even the basic freedom to disagree with the herd, and to form our own opinions.
Let's be honest here. We have had signs of this coming, and one of the signs of people's inability to deal with opposing viewpoints (and just deal with hard/complicated truths in general), are "hate speech" laws.
The very idea of "hate speech" is, from a purely logical viewpoint, obscenely stupid, and totally incoherent. For one to support "hate speech" laws (as has been implemented in my own country), one has to not only be not thinking, but actually totally committed to others not thinking as well. To presume that one can know with certainty that another person is speaking out of a motivation of "hate", is of course obscene in it's presumption. To then make that utterance "illegal" because it offends you, is of course just tyranny.
What this actually amounts to, is "wrong-think" laws, like in 1984. Hate speech is really just an earlier version of wrong-think. And these hate speech laws were implemented in many western countries long before this new virus crisis. In reality, this virus situation is simply an highly accelerated continuation of the madness that was slowly encroaching before.
In truth, as we all really already know, the main problem facing mankind is the same problem that has always been facing mankind. And that is the problem of our shared human condition, and our species' inability to understand and love ourselves, on the deepest of levels.
As Carl Jung repeatedly admonished, the main struggle of man is to learn to love our dark side, what he termed as our "shadow". And indeed, this was the overarching goal of all of Nietzche's works as well, particularly of "Zarathustra".
And it was in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" that Nietzsche talked about how "man is a rope, over an abyss", and that he loved those who were able to offer themselves as sacrifices for something bigger than themselves. And he was very critical of the "Christian" tendency to look to be awarded for good deeds (ie: heaven).
In truth, in our society, we are so morbidly narcissistic, that we have taken "virtue-signalling" and "do good to feel good" (instead of actual real concern for others) to new levels, and are now almost wholly committed to anything other than making ourselves feel good (under the guise of "concern" for others, or in this virus situation, their "health and safety"), that we are willing to destroy the whole economy, just to achieve this feeling of being a "hero".
The same problem remains as it has always been. Each of us has done things and harbored thoughts and feelings that we are not proud of. We all need a greater contexting of our history and who we are and where we come from.
I think, deep down, we all know that the human species is not an intrinsically "evil" species (contrary to the placards of fundamentalists, and the political extremes we see in our day). But we have all been waiting for a time that, one day, would show irrefutable proof that we are indeed not just "not evil", but gloriously good and heroic (but not for the reason that we "stay home and stay safe").
And as unbelievable as it may seem, I think that answer to the age-old question of "Why are humans good when the evidence seems overwhelming that we are terrible?", may now have actually been found.
I encourage the reader to check out that link, and decide for yourself... and who knows... maybe we CAN turn this ship around.
"Joker", Cruelty, and Mother's Narcissistic Personality Disorder
**Caution** Minor Spoiler Alert
Joker was indeed an Oscar-worthy performance by Joaquin Phoenix (to understate it).
All the reviews ahead of time, both good and bad, made for greater anticipation, and I did really enjoy this very gritty/real non-superhero movie.
To get one thing out of the way, let's be clear: There are no "good guys" in this movie. And for that reason, for being so different, I love it even more. You certainly empathize with Joker for much of the movie, but the balance it strikes, where you don't fully want him to win, but you don't entirely want him to lose either, is really well done.
I also appreciate how Thomas Wayne (and subsequently Bruce Wayne) is juxtaposed beside his character, but you neither really admire Thomas, or totally despise him, either.
I can appreciate now why many people on the political left have drifted away from appreciating this movie (my own ridiculous "State Broadcaster" in my country has recommended skipping it).
I once heard someone describe our current political leftist parties as "the new church ladies", and this is quite apt. For in the same way that many fundamentalists often take a very strident/non-nuanced picture of "morality" and "culpability" for wrong-doing (and in our more recent society, "wrong-think"), so also many leftists do the same. I can see how this movie would be a red flag to such minds who want to reduce all "badness" in the world, to one thing.
I recently heard a conservative political commentator (I tend to libertarian conservatism myself) also say that this movie is of the Social Justice left, that it sympathizes with them. To be frank, I think he's wrong, and like many religious people on the right, he missed the nuance undertones in this story.
Whether you're a leftist "new church lady", or a classical fundamentalist, one thing is for sure: Our desire to "scapegoat" all the problems of the world onto one thing (devil, the rich, patriarchy, capitalism, feminism, marxism, etc), won't be truly satisfied/buttressed by this film.
As many others have said, this movie just really opens dialogue, and it's one of the few gems that you could go see, and then talk with friends over beers for hours afterwards. I just love that.
There is, however, one thing I'd like to point out (minor spoiler) of this movie, that both positive and negative reviewers seem to miss:
Despite the, yes, rather ridiculous placards of "kill the rich" that the movie's equivalent of "Antifa" carry around, it's not really about them, or about their (assumed) anti-capitalism efforts (although images of them are a frequent feature).
What is it about? In one word? ...
Revenge.
Or maybe more specifically... Exhaustion.
Revenge against what? What I appreciate in this film is how it's not so much about how "evil" the "rich capitalists" are per se (even though a cursory viewing may lend itself to that). What this film is really about, is the shocking discovery process of the "sins of the fathers" (or in Joker's case, the mother), by the son.
Where your heart really breaks for Arthur/Joker (if you're paying attention) is the shocking discovery of the terrible things that were imposed upon him when he was young, and how, for so long, those things were hidden/brushed under the rug. Particularly, after how long he has dutily taken care of his mother, the real shock is in coming to terms with what happened to him when he was young, and the specific condition he learns his mother has is a part of that.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)
There is one scene where Arthur (Joker) is pursuing the truth of his past. He is in a scene with the records clerk who basically reads the records and tells him that his mom suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). The clerk isn't supposed to release the records, but Arthur steals them. And that, coupled with other discoveries, leads him down a dark path, where he realizes much of what he thought of the past, is in fact, a lie.
What is that condition? NPD is a "Cluster B" disorder that fractures the whole "personality" of the person who suffers with it, leading to levels of narcissism that are wholly crippling to a normal life. Having known people who suffer from such disorders (cluster B), this aspect really resonated with me.
To me, this is a critical point in the movie. It's not really a sort of "Antifa" ideological thing with Arthur/Joker. It just happens to be the case that those who want to "bring down the system", are rising in tandem with Arthur's journey of discovering the dark past.
It's pretty apparent to me that Arthur doesn't really care about politics per se, but rather that he is simply tired of the hand-waving away of the hard past, but more than that, coupled with the relentless/heartless cruelty of society, in general.
Overt vs Covert Nihilism
Arthur isn't really against capitalism per se. At one point, he even states he's not political. This would no doubt be in contrast with those around him who were carrying the "anti-rich" placards. They would at least claim that their goals were political, and for the "common good".
Our modern real-life equivalent are groups like "Antifa" (supposedly "anti-fascist"), who claim to work against actions they see as "fascist" (but most of us know they tend to communism).
The point is that, at least in regard to what they project (which is dubious), they claim to be working towards a better world.
What is admirable about JOKER, is that, contrary to those protesters (who co-opt his ascent), he doesn't actually even bother with putting out the pretense about creating a better world. You can see he has more (admirable) honesty than that. Life has been relentlessly cruel to him, and the desire for the end (chaos), naturally comes to be his goal. Arthur/"Joker" becomes an Overt Nihilist, in contrast with the protesters, who would not have the courage to admit their real motivations (covert nihilists).
Relentless Cruelty, and Personality Disorders
I like capitalism generally (it's better than virtually everything else on planet earth, IMO). So don't get me wrong, I'm not ideologically siding with communism/socialism or something like that.
But let's be clear here regarding the underlying message of the movie: If "society" (particularly families, but also organizations, capitalism, etc) thinks it's possible to maintain a world where the relentless selfish pursuit of capital is the main and overarching goal, and thus cruelty/indifference to others is commonplace (and ends up being the rule, rather than the exception), you can be sure that it is not psychologically "sustainable".
The so-called "sins of the fathers" will catch up to us, at some point or other. Eventually, personalities will "crack", and create "personality disorders", and at that point, the end will be "off to the races".
Again, to be clear, I do not advocate for "forced kindness" (socialism, etc). I'm actually not advocating for anything.
I'm merely saying this: If society (families in particular) runs out of spontaneous/voluntary kindness, society should not expect to last long.
As the lyric from "The Messenger" by Linkin Park goes:
"When life leaves us blind, [only voluntary] love [true kindness] keeps us kind."
Jesus, Currency, and a Reconsideration of "Render to Caesar"
What's in a word?
Or more specifically, what's in a translated word? Well, as the reader may come to see after reading this article, sometimes, quite a bit.
There were many things that I heard regularly growing up in my church background that, although they provided a solid framework for me from which to think and act (and for that I am grateful), I have since come to evaluate ultimately as, however well-meaning, a bit off the mark.
And "render to Caesar" is one of those verses/mantras.
In a similar vain to another article that I have written (regarding Jesus and the topic of divorce), I will present in this article also a very different view of "render to Caesar" that, because of a lack of nuance, has been missed by a large segment of Christendom and biblical scholars.
And the first clue that takes us on this very interesting journey will boil down to a word (or two) and the different way translations have "rendered" it (no pun intended). As the reader will discover, it is my contention that only the NIV (New International Version) has gotten it right (or at least quite close).
Taxation and the Roman Imperial Cult
As they tried regularly with Christ to trap him on other topics, so also the Pharisees knew that there was one extremely controversial topic that, if there was anything that would perplex him, it must be this: The issue of Roman dominance over the Jews. Among the Jews, this issue was a lightning rod.
To understand this better, one has to understand the Roman Imperial Cult, and the polytheism of the Romans, in contrast with the Jews. Quite frankly, although tolerated to a great degree in many aspects of society, the Jews were looked at very strangely by the Romans (and vice versa).
For the Romans, worship of deities was more a way to honor themselves and their exploits. For instance, if the Romans were engaged in war, they would worship and honor Mars, the god of war. And in so doing, they would honor their own war efforts, and seek fortune/support from that god.
Or if they were engaged in agriculture, they would honor Saturn, the god of agriculture, as aay to honor themselves in that pursuit, and to seek the blessings of a good harvest.
This was quite different from the Jews, who worshiped only one God in all things, and rather than seeking to honor themselves in that worship, sought to submit to this one God as far greater than themselves (as was established by the great prophets Abraham and Moses). And being a Jew himself, it was this tradition that Jesus emerged from.
But quite interestingly, it was only a few decades before Jesus birth, that the Romans began to, instead of just honoring the gods, actually started raising Emperors themselves to an almost-god-like status (particularly Julius Caesar), and basically worship him as divine after his death. And it was this that no doubt would have been a massive affront to the Jews.
Essentially, between the Romans and the Jews, was a major conflict of VALUES. They were fighting for very different perspectives. You can read a short summary of the Roman Imperial Cult here.
And so, although they were able to live in relative peace for quite sometime (that is, up until the total destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD), many more devout Jews were quite antagonistic under the surface.
And this underlying antagonism really came to the surface in the issue of taxation. For the Jews (with the exception of the more secular Jews), being forced to pay taxes to this regime which was the antithesis of their values, was a really hard thing to bear. And what made it worse, was this new development in which the Romans blasphemed all decent morality (in the Jews' eyes) by exalting their Emperor to an almost God-like status.
It is within this context that the Pharisees came to ask Jesus:
"Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?" (Luke 20:22)
And in a sense, the Pharisees were quite right that this issue would reveal clearly not just where Jesus stood on the particular issue, but what his underlying values really were.
"Nice coin you got there... Whose face is that on there?"
Now that we have established the general context and the no doubt resentment that must have filled many Jews, in the face of the outright blasphemy of their forced subservience, we can begin to see the nuance that Jesus carefully navigated through in giving his listeners a response.
In the NIV, Luke chapter 20:20 reads like this:
"Keeping a close watch on him, they sent spies, who pretended to be sincere. They hoped to catch Jesus in something he said, so that they may hand him over to the power and authority of the governor."
This makes a lot of sense in light of the historical context. It must have really bothered the Jews to see someone like Jesus, who seemed quite aloof to the issue of politics. And so, having a more direct interest in their own political slavery, naturally wanted to embroil Jesus in the issue as well. But Jesus fundamentally had other concerns.
Verses 21-22 continue:
"So the spies questioned him:
'Teacher, we know that you speak and teach what is right, and that you do not show partiality but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?'
He saw through their duplicity and said to them,
'Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?' "
Now notice Jesus' immediate response and how he didn't answer their question directly, which he knew for which there was no "safe" answer.
Instead of entering into the political fray about paying taxes, he brought attention to the means by which Rome demanded payment, namely, the currency, and in this case, the Denarius.
The question should now arise: Why did Jesus do this?
Because this was no "ordinary" coin. This was "tribute money".
It could be read on some coins:
“TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS,” an abbreviation of “TIBERIVS CAESAR DIVI AVGVSTI FILIVS AVGVSTVS” — “Tiberius Caesar, Son of the Divine Augustus, Augustus.” (more details can be found here)
As mentioned above, full-on Emperor worship had not yet been fully instituted. But the Romans were well on their way. And by the time of Emperor Nero, it would take on new blasphemous proportions, with him claiming to be basically God in the flesh, someone to be directly worshiped.
And so it was rather obvious to Jesus that the coinage already was in violation of the Second Commandment of the Law of Moses, that you shall not make a graven image. The coin claimed Tiberius had authority over worship, and essentially raised him to the status of a god.
Did you notice how Jesus didn't have "tribute money" on him, but that he had to ask for it?
There's probably a good reason for that... from a Jewish point of view, he was probably disgusted by it. And by implication, he wanted to draw the Pharisees' attention to their lack of shame over their usage of it.
He basically asked his listeners:
"Whose idolatrous graven image is on this coin?"
And then, having been shamed by this truth they seemed to have forgotten, they may have quite sheepishly replied:
"Caesar's."
"Render"? Or "give back"?
What is in a word, as mentioned at the beginning of this article? Well, in light of this context, a lot.
Most translations render Christ's next words as: "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's", or just "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's". And without being aware of the historical context, it can seem that Christ is just simply exhorting his listeners to pay whatever taxes are owed. And indeed, this seems to be the most common interpretation within Christendom.
But if this was the case, why did he ask about the image and inscription? It would seem then that Christ advocated direct subservience in taxation to whomever had taken power, and to pay with their coinage, no matter how blasphemous their images were.
But this simply doesn't mesh with the context. And if we use instead the NIV, it all comes together much more clearly and has much higher explanatory power.
Verse 25:
"He said to them, 'Then give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.'"
It is my contention/conclusion in this article that Jesus is suggesting going far beyond just "paying taxes to Caesar". He's actually suggesting repudiating all physical currency that violates the Second Commandment of Moses, by giving it all back to Caesar and no longer using it.
It seems to me to be bordering on subversive in a sense, but yet, because no doubt Caesar would "receive" the coins in Jesus "teaching", it would not have been a "red flag" teaching that would have gotten Jesus in immediate trouble with the authorities.
To be clear, I don't think Jesus is saying to abandon the currency entirely, just the pieces that violate the Jewish law.
It truly is a remarkable answer. Jesus was able to get to the heart of the matter the Pharisees were glossing over, and yet was able to easily evade being painted as a threat to Rome. No wonder they said in verse 26:
"They were unable to trap him in what he had said there in public. And astonished by his answer, they became silent."
Practical Lesson/Conclusion?
Regardless though of if Christ had any subversive political motivations, there seems to be quite a significant principle here: Participating in the monetary system, no matter how difficult it may seem to get out of it, amounts (in at least some degree) to your support of the regime that has instituted it.
The Pharisees resented Rome, and yet they carried Caesar's graven image in their pocket (in contradiction to the guidelines laid out in their own Jewish law). They carried the particular pieces of currency that violated their own lawbook.
It was of course this hypocrisy of the Pharisees that Jesus was speaking to. Although the context does more clearly paint an informative cultural perspective of Rome becoming increasingly blasphemous in Jewish eyes (and thus sets the stage for the inevitable conflict between Rome and Jerusalem), the direct principle we can extract here is a simple one:
Make sure your own personal expedience doesn't trump your own proclaimed religious convictions (and if does, it may be time to have a re-think).
And although one may find support in other parts of the Bible to "pay your taxes" (particularly St. Paul), this passage is not one of them.
Nietzsche, Slipknot, and the Eternal Glory of Heavy Metal (Part 1)
"To be sure, I am a forest, and a night of dark trees. But he who is not afraid of my darkness will find banks of roses under my cypresses."
-Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"
Lately I've become gratefully engrossed with an essay written by the very insightful Thomas M Hawley, called "Dionysus in the Mosh Pit: Nietzschean Reflections on the Role of Music in Recovering the Tragic Disposition".
Mr. Hawley's insights have been extremely valuable to me, and have helped make sense of years of glorious heavy metal madness, and shown me quite convincely that, far from being "bad" or destructive (as many seem to believe), the Nietzschean spirit that pervades much of the music that has kept my soul from despair in my own darkest hours, is in fact, just that: a glorious and healthy corollary/help to the fundamental struggles of growing up in a world/universe and human condition of mystery, pain, and (and often crippling) paradox.
In this article, I want to review Mr. Hawley's 2010 essay, compare Nietzsche's words and themes with the lyrics and music from the heavy metal titans, Slipknot, (and in particular their latest single release) and paint a larger picture of the "roses" that can be found under Nietzsche's (and ours) cypresses, for those who have the courage to walk the journey.
To understand the connection between heavy metal (Slipknot in particular), and Friedrich Nietzsche, one needs to first understand a term coined by Nietzsche: The Tragic Disposition.
-Nietzsche, "Zarathustra"
One of Nietzsche's first works was the book, "The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music". Although it's true that many years later Nietzsche himself would look back on the book as clumsily written and overly optimistic in some regards, the core idea of the book remained standing firm.
And a main contention of this article (and from Hawley's essay) is that it is in modern styles of music totally unknown to Nietzsche (heavy metal was yet to be invented, although hints and cross-fading within classical music already existed), where the central idea of his book comes to a new level of remarkable fruition. It is proposed in this article that it is out of the "spirit of music" of heavy metal that this "tragic disposition" has been most effectively re-gained in humans in modern times.
But first.. why a tragic disposition? And why must it not perish?
Well, a disposition is so much more than just a belief or an opinion. It is a fundamental "quality of character"; a tendency or manner of carrying oneself. A disposition is the ultimate acknowledgement of something you believe to be true, almost undeniable proof that you believe it, it is reflective in (incorporated into) your... disposition. In a sense, you carry it with you.
And for Nietzsche, it was a disposition of Tragedy that was most needed among humans. And it was that which was precisely what was lacking.
But why tragedy?
Because for Nietzsche, tragedy was something he perceived all throughout our world, in our lives, and possibly even in the essence of things. He saw it as a stage that everything (us humans as no exception) seems to go through, to get to a higher plane of growth/development. As so naturally, in this view of life, if one has their eyes on a higher plane, one must be willing to suffer through tragedy and loss in the present. The axiom "No Pain, No Gain" is actually a Nietzschean idea, which comes from his quote: "That which doesn't kill me, makes me stronger."
But this is much easier said than done, as one cannot just "put on" this disposition out of nowhere (especially when not accustomed to it)... it has to be achieved. And more specifically, it has had to be made safe to attain, and to maintain.
Why? Because facing the notion that life is so often full of immense tragedy, pain, and disappointment (even if thought of as a temporary stage) can often be a depressing and daunting task. But maintaining an at least somewhat honest perspective of the tragic side of life (a "disposition" of tragedy), instead of full retreat into denial, comfort, and distraction ("decadence"), has been a needful task in Nietzsche's view. And thus we have needed tools to help us do this, and we should, in his view, look to those who have found those tools already.
And in all of history, more than anyone else, Nietzsche admired the Greeks for having attained/maintained this disposition most effectively/safely, and in Nietzsche's view, they were all the more healthy and strong/resilient because of it.
But how did they achieve this? In Nietzsche's view, with their Tragic Plays/Greek Theater Tragedies ("Attic Tragedy"). Nietzsche's fundamental contention about the Greeks was that, through their plays, which incorporated the tragedy and difficulty of real life that we all (the viewers) inevitably experience in our own lives (and which the Greeks knew all too well also) into a meaningful narrative, they were able to transform or sublimate their own (often seemingly senseless) tragic episodes, into something meaningful, by implication. Or, at the very least, imply that their (our) own tragedies, must at least have some meaning (especially in keeping with the Nietzsche's view that there is "gain" on the other side of "pain)..
It was this incorporation/transformation into a narrative of meaning/self-empowerment, which enabled the Greeks to avoid succumbing to otherwise tempting nihilistic/depressing conclusions, that the sometimes chaos and madness of life, and our shared human condition, would have tempted them to (as they sometimes do us all).
In other words, when chaos and apparent meaninglessness confronted the Greeks, it was their tragic plays which harnessed and incorporated those tragedies into a meaningful narrative, which, instead of creating sadness in the viewer, it would do the opposite, and give the viewer more strength (particularly psychic strength, as Hawley discusses in his essay), and even vitality, to carry on.
In many ways, it is helpful to think of the fundamental job that a modern automobile engine accomplishes. What's the essence of what the engine does? It sets off an explosion, and then harnesses the power of that explosion; something that would normally be only destructive and negative when not harnessed, and transforms it into a positive (a harnessed explosion ultimately moves the vehicle).
And it was Nietzsche's contention that modern Christendom (the West) had largely given up on, or abandoned, this healthy outlet/sublimation tool that the Greeks so effectively utilized (we prefer to just put out the dangerous fire/explosion entirely). And thus, without using tools like this, it was inevitable that we would decline, and ultimately perish.
To Nietzsche, all the so-called "negative" aspects of life, and of our shared human condition (rage, envy, malice, etc), needed to be harnessed for a greater "good" (or more specifically, to enhance our own sense of power and strength), and thus given meaning (and subsequently also "valved-off", or given expression), so as to ensure that those negative emotions wouldn't fester into something much, much worse.
To quote Hawley in his essay of heavy metal in general, he said:
And then he rightly recognizes the Stand-Out Titans of Heavy Metal:
They truly are the stand-out Titans of Rage-transformation, and I believe that history will show that countless people have avoided depression-linked tragedies (like suicide), because of how this band (and so many like them) have managed to connect (sympathize/mirror) with so many millions who have been (however subconsciously) seeking meaning to their own journey through the mire of dirt that life seems to so often confine us.
Heavy metal fans not only find a sympathetic mirroring of our tension, but a means to VALVE it off, and, in so doing in an appropriate way, experience a strong sense of personal POWER.
One of the great misunderstandings/ distortions of Nietzsche, is that he was somehow an advocate or forerunning supporter of the ideals of the Nazis who would eventually come to power a few decades after his death. Indeed, elements of the Nazi party actually appropriated some of his works, even though he himself was totally opposed to many of their key elements, like anti-semitism (and he described himself as "anti-political").
What has become much more clear is that, when Nietzsche used the word "power", he did so in a way that many tyrants who would come after him, did not mean the word. In the same way that the loud roar of an engine can simply be a display of it's power, without the vehicle trampling over others (at least consciously), so he imagined the ideal of humans learning to not condemn their "dark side", but rather learning how to harness it, and to celebrate their greatness in doing so (not that he was against conquest of others per se, but against conquest rooted in "ressentiment", ie: extreme resentment).
This is very reminiscent of a quote by the popular clinical psychologist Jordan B Peterson:
It is my contention that, in speaking sentiments like this, without knowing it, Peterson is getting to the underlying healthy principle of heavy metal.
END OF PART 1 - PART 2 BLOG POST COMING SOON
Jesus, Divorce, and a Lack of Nuance
This article isn't fundamentally about divorce. Divorce is just an important topic; a segue, to something else, which the reader will see shortly. In verse 3, it says:
"Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?'"
I think one of the most important parts of this passage is the description of the Pharisees motive in inquiring about divorce. Like in many other places, their objective was to test Christ.
Content of the Law? Or Reason for the Law?
In light of seeing their motive, Christ's first response doesn't actually answer the question (which he knew was a trap), but rather takes aim at the fundamental concern behind the question. The Pharisees were primarily concerned with what the *rules* were ("Is it lawful?").
No doubt, in Christ's day, all the different sects of Judaism must have been arguing about how to interpret the Torah (the Law of Moses).
But as is clear to me now, Christ was interested in a far more interesting question.
And so he responded:
"Haven’t you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." (verses 4-6)
So what is Jesus doing here with this answer?
He's taking the listener back in time and forcing them to consider a more fundamental question than the one they were asking, which is:
Why is there a marriage custom/law to begin with?
And his answer to his own question, is essentially that the union between a man and a woman is a very mysterious one where two individual humans become "one flesh", or in a sense, one person. In other words, they become "intertwined" and connected, on a very deep level.
And this "union" is how the human race was "designed"/made to be, and is the nexus from which children ought to be born. In more modern/scientific terms, we would call this "pair-bonding". And this "bond" is a deeply psychological/spiritual/ chemical etc bond that can't be easily broken, that is, without causing extreme distress.
No doubt among other psychological factors, modern science has recognized a peptide hormone called "oxytocin" that plays a role in "bonding" a man and a woman together.
So instead of answering their question about the law, or the "rule", Jesus pointed them back in time, and pointed out that: "Hey! Maybe there is a really good reason for the rule to begin with!
If Two People Become "One Flesh", What Then of Divorce?
In light of this original ideal, and the nature of the union of marriage, the Pharisees then asked what to them would have been a pretty obvious next question:
"Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” (verse 7)
They're essentially saying "If marriage is such a strong union and connection, why allow divorce at all then?" Jesus then, with his authority and insight, responded:
“Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.” (verses 8-9)
This answer of course is very important, and it is where many people (including myself) have misunderstood Christ, and taken him far too literally, with not enough nuance (and suffered the consequences of unjustified guilt and shame). So let's try and illuminate what Christ is really getting at here.
A New Rule about Marriage and Divorce?
I used to read this verse fairly straight-forwardly (like reading a newspaper), without considering the context, and why Jesus said what he did. In essence, I took Jesus as saying this:
"Here's the old rule you guys have been following. But I have come to give you a NEW RULE!"
I see now that this interpretation couldn't have been further from the truth. The one thing that Jesus was not doing in this verse, was laying down a new "rule" for people to follow, at least not at the fundamental/essential level.
He's essentially tempting the listener to a question:
"If pair-bonding/marriage is such a strong and binding thing, what does that imply about the nature of divorce?"
And the answer to that question should then become pretty apparent to us: Ripping apart that union has tremendously difficult immediate and long-term practical consequences, of which we should all be wary.
"Because Your Hearts Were Hard"?
And now we can get to Jesus' direct answer of "Moses permitted you to divorce your wife because your hearts were hard".
Let's first explain what this does not mean. He was not saying that if anyone ever initiates a divorce, that it implies that the initiator necessarily has a "hard heart". He is not saying that you should never get a divorce, lest it be found out about you that you have a hard heart and are a bad person. In fact, this has very little to do with the initiator of the divorce (who could be doing so for a whole myriad of reasons, good or bad).
Jesus is essentially saying this (paraphrased):
"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of people's hearts, which tragically, sometimes, made divorce necessary."
Yes, Jesus is basically admitting here that, tragically, because your "hearts were hard", divorce, with all it's heartache and misery and displacement, was sometimes necessary.
The "hardness of hearts" Christ referred to, was the state of mind people get into, where they are so stubbornly committed to all manner of destructive attitudes and behaviours, where it makes it impossible for their partners to continue on in a union with them. And so then they are stuck in a situation where they have to choose between two "evils"; to continue in the destruction/abuse/adultery of their partner, or leave, and suffer the heartache of that separation. Both options are horrific, but tragically, divorce/separation is sometimes better, or a "lesser of evils".
And that's why Christ then immediately followed it up with
"but it was not this way from the beginning."
He's essentially juxtaposing our fallen world, where divorce is sometimes tragically necessary, with the original ideal of how, in light of what the marriage union was/is, since the beginning. And how, in light of this, being concerned about what "the law" says, is just really short-sighted.
"Causes Her to Commit Adultery", or "Commits adultery"?
It's the next sentence of Jesus that really confused me though for quite sometime.
It was as if Jesus is being unequivocal about interpreting the "rules" laid out in the law of Moses:
In Matthew 19:9, he says: "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery."
But we need to compare this with another passage in Matthew where Christ addresses the same issue, but with a slightly different answer. In Matthew 5:31, Jesus says "whoever divorces his wife...causes her to commit adultery".
In order to understand this, we need to keep in mind the immediate textual context described above, and the way that Jesus uses the word "adultery". It should be more apparent now from the context that he doesn't mean it in the same way as the Pharisees were caught up with; which was a moralizing-based rule. But we can see in the original greek (from greek scholars), that Jesus was using the passive version of the word "adultery", and that passive sense implies a lot!
And this passive sense is also illuminated by the cultural context. It's important to understand the state of affairs that women lived under in Greco-Roman times. Unlike the modern west, there was no help for women from the State. There were no welfare programs, women's programs, child benefits, etc. And to make matters worse, a woman's word in the law system was worth much less than a man's. For women, a divorce could imply the destruction of her way of life, and even possibly death!
A woman in this situation would feel immediate pressure to marry another man almost right away, because for her, that meant security and safety from poverty/death.
So we can see then that Christ is taking issue with the Pharisees' preoccupation with the "rules", and how they are not even apparently considering the welfare of the divorced woman, who would be subject to immense difficulty immediately after receiving a "certificate of divorce". It's the coldness of the Pharisees that is the real concern to Christ here.
And so to summarize, there are two things which illuminate the meaning here:
- The word "adultery", in the greek, is in the passive sense.
- The cultural context tells us that a newly divorced woman would often be in extreme danger, and would be pressured to immediately marry someone else for her own safety (would be forced into "adultery").
"Adultery" in a Non-Moralizing Sense?
And this brings us to the conclusion. In light of Christ's emphasis on the nature of the "one flesh"/pair-bonding nature of the union between a man and a woman, and in light of the practical danger that he was highlighting of the woman being pushed into a dangerous situation where she would basically often be forced into being with someone who she was not "bonded" with (and all it's subsequent destruction/danger), it becomes clear that Christ's use of the word "adultery", is not the same as how the Pharisees were using it.
He was not laying down a new rule. He was challenging the listener to think more deeply about what exactly the union between a man and a woman is, on a practical level.
What is pair-bonding? What is the spiritual/psychological/biological nature of a man and a woman becoming "one flesh"?
Once one considers these deeper questions, the silliness of the original question (pressing about the "rule") becomes a little more plain. And the danger of taking the marriage/sexual union lightly, also becomes plain.
Christ's use of the word "adultery", obviously now, is referring to the consequences (physical, spiritual, psychological, etc) of the breaking of a deep union. It has very little to do with "moral rules", or "obeying God".
Christ is warning us that, once you've "pair-bonded" with someone else, that union cannot be broken without causing damage. It doesn't matter how much you don't like the person, or even if they are causing you great pain. Breaking a union has severe consequences, which we should all try avoid as much as possible.
Now that Christ has pointed us back to the more original questions, we may then find ourselves saying along with the Pharisees:
"If this is the case, it is better not to marry!"
And Christ would no doubt also say to us in return:
"Let him who can accept this, accept it."
Jordan Peterson - Fierce Anti-Nietzschean?
I really like Dr. Jordan Peterson. I have been a fan of his for many years, long before his ascension to infamy after the notorious Bill C-16 controversy in Canada (I myself am Canadian and am very sympathetic to his brave efforts to stand against this totalitarian effort).
I was long fascinated by his many lectures on youtube, and dove into many of his concepts, particularly his lectures based on his “Maps of Meaning” book. Long before the world knew him, I benefitted greatly from his works and poignant lectures.
Particularly as someone who grew up in a religious environment, and who struggled with my faith for many years (eventually rejecting my former fundamentalism, but keeping the door open for a more novel and profound extrapolation), I naturally gravitated towards this man (among others).
All along though, something in me was quite ambivalent about Peterson, and it was going to take me quite a long time to put a finger on it, and finally articulate just exactly what the hell it was that was bothering me.
And so here I am now, writing this. It is important to me that the reader understands that this is no knee-jerk reaction to his works (of which, generally, I am quite grateful).
I am, however, at this point, quite critical of a central point of his entire work, and I hope this brings that (otherwise seemingly obscured) point to light.
The Dividing Line – Friedrich Nietzsche
Many years
ago, I was introduced to the works of Friedrich Wilhem Nietzsche. Nietzsche
(like Carl Jung) was the son of a Christian pastor, and so not only his
writings, but also his past, from where he emerged (I too am the son of a
pastor), and his style of writing
(his often grandiose style, particularly in his “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”,
resonated with the religious styles I had grown up in), fascinated me.
And my interest in him was peaked even further by Dr. Peterson’s frequent reference to him and his various works/quotes.
Very rightly, I think, Peterson uses Nietzsche as not just a source of ideas or knowledge, but also a bouncing/sounding board off of which to clarify his own ideas, and I have benefitted from him doing so.
However, starting relatively early on, something bothered me about his use of Nietzsche. The more I read/listened to both of these men’s works, the more I started to notice a sharp distinction, and a radical divergence. And eventually (where I’ve come to now), a total antipathy and even outright ideological hostility.
Now someone might object… "Ok, so Nietzsche and Peterson disagree. What does it matter? Did not Peterson himself talk about how sometimes people can be 'helpfully wrong'?"
And that brings me to my fundamental objection/criticism of Peterson: He simply isn’t straight-forward/honest enough regarding the degree to which he disagrees/diverges from Nietzsche in his fundamental ideas. And contrary to what some may claim, this is really important. For someone who references Nietzsche as much as he does, this negligence is really problematic.
Nietzsche as Anti-Christ?
It is well known that one of Nietzsche's last works was "The Anti-Christ". What many people don't know, however, is that this work is, although indeed a critique of Christianity, not at all the type of critique that many modern so-called "atheists" would make.
It is not an attempt to historically prove that Jesus didn't/couldn't have physically risen from the dead, or walked on water, or turned water into wine, healed the sick, etc.
Nietzsche himself had in fact very little interest in the metaphysical question of whether miracles ever happen, or if "God" literally existed, or the like. His criticism of Christianity (among other things) consisted mainly of an attack on it's moral presuppositions, that is, on it's value judgments.
To put it
more succinctly: instead of critiquing the idea that Jesus died for your sins
and literally rose again from the dead to save you from “the world”, and
“worldly” things (an idea clearly established by St. Paul), he aimed his heavy guns at the very presupposition itself that "the world" was, in fact, "worldly", or "bad", or "evil". He took issue with the operating assumption/value system on which the whole "redemption narrative takes place!
As he summarized in Zarathustra:
“There is much filth in the world; that much is true. But that does not make the world itself a filthy monster.” (my own emphasis added)
This is indeed a very careful distinction. Now I am not arguing that Peterson is anywhere trying to make the case that the world is indeed a filthy monster (or that it is not). My point is to first set up the underlying point, which is that Nietzsche, although indeed a doubter of the miraculous claims of the Bible, had very little interest in debunking them. He just simply took their antithesis (that they didn’t literally happen, but, in his view, probably represented something else) for granted.
More Than Just Anti-Fundamentalism
In one of Peterson’s lectures (direct link to be added soon), he implies how, historically speaking, in the last century particularly, religious fundamentalism has been made impossible to the scientific thinker (someone thinking in the “scientific domain”), and I very much agree with this.
But he also noted that we didn’t really need to attack fundamentalism (or even debunk/rebuff it at all), because Nietzsche, in his works, had done that for us already.
This is a very important juncture in Peterson’s interaction with Nietzsche (the more important one yet to come).
As is finally clear to me now, there is, of course, a strong element of truth in what he is saying at this point. Nietzsche did spend much of his time railing against Christianity, but, as mentioned above, the manner in which he did so was not primarily anti-fundamentalism (a topic he had little interest in, and only brushed aside).
Rather, as mentioned already, Nietzsche primarily aimed his guns at the question of VALUES.
To illustrate the point, I think it is quite clear that Nietzsche would be found to say something like the following:
“You say you don’t believe in God, or the miracles in the Bible. Well, good for you. But do you still believe in the ethics of the new testament? Do you believe that we ‘ought’ to ‘love our neighbour’? Do you believe that we ‘ought’ to ‘tell the truth’? Do you believe that we ‘ought’ to try and help the ‘less fortunate’?”
It is very important to be honest here about the central critique of religion that Nietzsche lays out, and that is this:
If you still do accept all the moral judgements that lie underneath all the religious metaphysics in the Bible (particularly the New Testament), Nietzsche considers your position absolutely disastrous, and indeed, that you are a danger to the future of the human race!
Not to say though that Nietzsche wants to change religious people's minds, but that he just very presciently sees that the question/problem of “oughtness” (how humans “ought” to live their lives) has previously/historically been based in religion, with all it’s metaphysics/fundamentalism built into it. That the “will to live” has been historically based on the notion (however religious) that humans exist “on purpose”, that our existence is not “accidental”.
And that, without this dogma, humans would collapse into despair and nihilism (hence the despair, not the jubilance of the mad man's declaration of the "death of God" in Nietzsche's infamous "Gay Science" or "Joyful Wisdom"), and instead of casting aside religion, we would indeed become MORE religious, but that we would just “switch religions”, to things like socialism and communism and fascism and “equality”, etc. (and lo and behold, that is precisely what has happened in the last century).
So, when so-called “new atheists” attack religion and then turn around and say that that we all “ought” to help one another, and “tell the truth”, and support “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”, they are, in Nietzsche’s view, being totally blind to their own subconscious internalization of their previous religion (whether their own individually, or their culture’s own internalization), and its accompanying ethics.
To put it simply, in Nietzsche’s view, it is not at all “common sense” or “self-evident” that humans “should be kind to each other”. Because this notion has been based upon the previous religious dogma that our lives have meaning because we EXIST ON PURPOSE.
Without this previous dogma (what Nietzsche disparagingly calls “the equality of souls”, whether “true” or not), the reason for acting “ethically” (and I use scare quotes on purpose here) totally falls apart, in Nietzsche’s view. And so then, we are then at a crossroads. We need to create NEW values (create a whole new value system/way of looking at ourselves and our history), or our species will self-destruct and disintegrate.
Whether or not the reader agrees with Nietzsche is not my concern here. But rather just to make the point that this is Nietzsche’s fundamental problem/challenge that is at the core of all his writings.
And to give credit to Mr. Peterson, he sees and understands quite clearly Nietzsche’s point. And it is here where we reach the main divergence between Peterson and Nietzsche.
New Values, or Old Values?
At many points in his lectures, after very rightly recognizing Nietzsche’s fundamental point, when faced with the question of “creating new values”, Peterson responds by saying that it’s simply “not clear” how in the world we would go about doing that. And to his credit, he is very much correct that this is an extremely difficult problem. And that it seems that there is no answer.
And so Peterson seems to conclude that, in light of the extreme difficulty/impossibility of creating new values (and in light of how this task seemed to make Nietzsche go mad himself), we do not need to create new values, but rather we need to re-discover the old values, and understand them in a more scientific (less dogmatic/fundamentalist) way.
And this brings me to my main criticism of Peterson’s work. It is precisely at this crossroads that Peterson TOTALLY PARTS WAYS with Nietzsche. This point is a complete separation/divergence. It is at this point that Peterson and Nietzsche become, in fact, ideological enemies. And from my perspective, this divergence/antipathy is simply not that well articulated/admitted by Peterson.
To Peterson’s credit, he does come out and say that he thinks Nietzsche was wrong in his insistence to create new values. Instead of siding with Nietzsche, Peterson seems to more side with Dostoevsky (who still maintained his Christianity, albeit maybe not exactly ‘orthodox’, despite his similar wrestling with the crisis of nihilism).
But even still, it needs to be stated that this rejection of Nietzsche’s hope, is, in fact, a total rejection of everything Nietzsche was working towards. Just the very title alone of one of Nietzsche’s later works, “Beyond Good and Evil, a Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future" indicates quite clearly the direction he is going. And in my opinion, Peterson is not very frank about how he became an ideological enemy of Nietzsche.
And it is
at this point that we ourselves need to ask a very careful question:
How much does this rejection of Nietzsche’s direction, matter? To Nietzsche? And to us?
After years of reading Nietzsche, it seems apparent to me now that this rejection matters a great deal. So much so, that it is difficult to understate just how much it matters.
IF (and this is a big “if”) Nietzsche was indeed correct in his general notion that simply adopting or just re-affirming the ethics of our previous religion (Christianity in particular), while discarding its metaphysics, was extremely dangerous, then Jordan Peterson could in fact represent one of the most dangerous people living today (no matter how much I like him, and how much good he has done for so many people). For it is quite possible that no one has embraced, articulated/extracted, and modernized the ethics and morality associated with our prior fundamentalism, like he has.
Peterson is quite insistent, for instance, that we should “never lie” to anyone, that we should always be absolutely honest (as far as we understand “honesty”). And in light of how such horrible totalitarian regimes (fascist, communist, etc) have decimated/destroyed hundreds of millions of lives through extreme deception in this last century alone, this position is understandable.
But let’s not mince words: This is totally anti-Nietzschean. Nietzsche was NOT an absolutist on “honesty” in every situation. In fact, he thought there was sometimes a sort of “good faith” behind people’s intentions to “deceive”. And if one reads Nietzsche right, it’s not so much that great tyrants come to be because they (and their people) deceive others so much (although that’s obviously a huge part), but rather that mankind is itself facing a crisis of meaning that we are running from. That our impulse to “lie” is rooted in something else much more important, that desperately needs to be addressed (and that if we addressed it, the impulse to lie would go away).
For Nietzsche, it is our moral *assumptions* (“love thy neighbour”, etc) that we have “carried over” from our previous religions, that is so incredibly dangerous. For Nietzsche, to actually “love your neighbour as you love yourself” has never actually been possible before, because humans have never been able to truly love themselves before.
As he said in “Zarathustra”:
“Love ever your neighbor as yourselves- but first be such as love themselves.”
This is
really Nietzsche’s great “critique” of Christ, if he ever had one. That
although Christ was quite a remarkable figure (who Nietzsche respected), he
viewed some of Christ’s teachings as naïve, because they were based on premises
that are dubious (do we actually love ourselves to begin with?).
Resolving/understanding your dark side.
As Peterson
has very well noted many times, the phenomenon of “evil” is undoubtedly real.
Nietzsche wouldn’t disagree with him on the existence of this “phenomenon”.
Nietzsche though had great hopes that someday in the future, mankind would be able to understand their “dark side” through discoveries of science (the reason for his “Gay Science”, or “Joyful Wisdom”).
And this was one reason he disdained religion so much, because its followers seemed to always just take for granted that such a thing is totally impossible (only in the “next life” is such a thing possible, to them).
But for
Nietzsche, we had to go “beyond good and evil” eventually. In this life.
Foolish and impossible?
I very much appreciate and respect the writings of both Nietzsche and Jordan Peterson. They have both been important parts of my life and thinking, and have helped me immensely.
But I have come to the conclusion that humans do indeed have to “go beyond” our basic moral presuppositions (and their accompanying self-reflection and subsequent self-loathing), which we have (often unknowingly) borrowed from our prior religions.
And as unbelievable/crazy it may sound to the reader, I think the way may actually now been made available to us.
Australian biologist Jeremy Griffith has presented a synthesis of the human condition that is extremely powerful, accountable, and compassionate. It brings love to our dark side, but without condoning destructive acts (of which this last century in particular has been full).
His latest book, “Freedom, the End of the Human Condition”, is his magnum opus work, which unpacks this remarkable idea. I myself have had some criticisms of Mr Griffith's works over the years, but I simply cannot deny that his central explanation of the human condition (his explanation of instinct vs intellect), in it's simplicity, is extremely powerful!
Nietzsche, in his "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", often spoke of "The Ubermensch", or the Overman.
The burning question for me now, is this: Will future generations be able to actually attain to the Overman? Is there a massive glorious potential for our human species that we have yet to begin to even fathom?
Humanity is undoubtedly at a crossroads. Things have never been so dangerous/polarized, and yet so full of potential. I think it may now indeed be time to “re-value” the past (and by so doing, possibly transform the future). Is it possible? I will let the reader decide.
-Rontimus