[節錄]初學者文字

節錄自A Beginner’s Guide to Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil

Nietzsche argues that part of the way in which we falsify reality is to divide it into opposites. One instance he gives is the idea of cause and effect, and this would be an epistemological example of this (i.e. relating to the act of knowing the world). However, Nietzsche also argues that we create opposite values in a moral sense, by dividing actions and motivations into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (or ‘good’ and ‘evil’). So, we might consider murder to be a bad act, for instance, and view giving to charity as a good act. But what if someone were to ask you, ‘Why is one act considered good and the other bad?’ You might begin by answering that giving to charity helps others, whilst murder harms others. Now, suppose the questioner responded, ‘But why is helping others considered good, and harming others considered bad?’ You might be tempted to answer, ‘Because we should treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves’ – or, as a Christian might say, ‘Do as you would be done by’. ‘But,’ your questioner replies, ‘aren’t you really con- cerned here with self-interest? You choose not to hurt others only because you want not to be hurt yourself.’ Now, your questioner has a point: your actions can be interpreted as being based in self-interest. So, you have a choice: either you can admit that all acts that we think of as ‘good’ are ultimately based in self- interest, or you can try to define ‘good’ in such a way that it has nothing at all to do with selfishness. If you take the latter option, Nietzsche argues, then you create a metaphysical notion of good which has nothing to do with reality – it is a falsification of life.

看了有股熟悉感，這段關於道德的敘述是剪給別人看的。
下面這段是我自己想看的，敘述freewill。

Nietzsche’s own view, not surprisingly, is somewhat difficult to define. On the one hand, as we have seen, he is critical of the idea of causa sui, and therefore – on the face of it – at odds with the very idea of free will; but he is also critical of the opposite view (determinism). Where, then, does this leave him?

“Assuming it is possible in this way to get beyond the peasant simplicity of this celebrated concept ‘free will’ and banish it from one’s mind, I would then ask whoever does that to carry his enlightenment a step further and also banish from his mind the contrary of that unnatural concept ‘free will’; I mean ‘unfree will’, which amounts to an abuse of cause and effect.”

But in what way is the traditional use of the terms ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ unsatisfactory? These terms, he argues, should only be used to help us understand each other in talking about the world, but they should not be used as explanations of it. For instance, we may talk about ‘looking for the reason’ as to why someone acted in a particular way, but it would surely be a mistake actually to go looking for this reason as if it were a separate cause distinct from everything else (i.e. as if it were a thing). And yet, Nietzsche points out, that is what we commonly do when we talk of cause and effect; we think of the cause as being the source of that which is produced (as opposed to simply being a way of describing certain events). Furthermore, just as the idea of causa sui is something that we have invented in the process of making the world in our own image, so the ‘unfree will’ (determinism) is reliant upon the same way of thinking. Furthermore, it is a ‘mechanistic’ picture of causation, in that (like Darwin’s theory of evolution) it treats nature as if it were a machine where all decisions are made by ‘external’ forces. Nietzsche’s preferred picture is one where nature is a battleground of competing drives, each of which has its own ‘internal’ agenda, like a desire which compels it to extend its power and dominance over others.

“Unfree will’ is mythology: in real life it is only a question of strong and weak wills.”

Here, then, we get to the crux of the matter. For Nietzsche, ‘will’ is a matter of ‘will to power’. In other words, when we feel a sense of freedom in our actions, what we are actually sensing, Nietzsche argues, is the feeling of power or of being alive as we give full expression to a certain ‘drive’ or instinct. Over time, we come to associate this feeling with being in control, and successfully ‘willing’ actions. Also, in contrast, the feeling that we associate with the expression of contrary instincts comes to be associated with lack of control. So, in reality, there is no such thing as ‘will’, only the dominance of certain drives over others.

“Freedom of the will’ – is the expression for that complex condition of pleasure of the person who wills, who commands and at the same time identifies himself with the executor of the commands – who, as such, enjoys also the triumph over resistances involved but who thinks it was his will itself which overcame these resistances.”

Nietzsche suggests that the best analogy of this state of affairs is that of a nation or “commonwealth”, where there are lots of competing “wills” or drives which exist together in a “social structure composed of many ‘souls’[or drives]”.29 In some cases, different drives join together to serve the same cause; in other cases, drives may oppose the rulers and plot rebellion (just as madness may attempt to overwhelm reason). Accordingly, the ‘will’ is a convenient myth which we use to describe this complicated state of affairs, and is simply our way of identifying with the “ruling class” (or dominant drive). A unified will might, however, be possible if certain drives were to join together, or one drive were to become so dominant as to rule over all – perhaps, in fact, we might argue that Nietzsche sees this as the ultimate goal of personal development (or ‘self-overcoming’).

beginner’s guide真是好東西，不會太難，讀起來不痛苦。