Note: I originally wrote this in Jan of 2007, and only recently dug it up and decided to give it an edit and post it up.
I have always taken issue with people who adhered to the tenets of Nietzsche*, or proposed a ‘might makes right’ attitude. The adopted brother (I believe) in “The Brother’s Karamazov” argued that if there was a God, then it was God who was responsible for his [the brother's] evil actions, and if there was not a God then there was thus no afterlife in which he was judged for his evil actions, and as such the evil actions were perfectly acceptable. Now, that isn’t the exact argument, no doubt, and it may even be the wrong book or character (indeed, I never read the book, I am recalling only a single scene I saw in some English class many years ago). The point is, I’ve always seen that “sort” of philosophy as inherently flawed. The “Ring of Gyges” type of philosophy.
*[I’ve never read Nietzsche, only briefly studied]
I had always internally characterized this sort of philosophy as an “asshole philosophy.” That is to say, this is the philosophy adopted by an asshole who wishes to rationalize their behavior. This fatalist (a term which I will self apply often enough) attitude that equates to: “I can, and you would, so I do.” Whenever I heard people speak like this I would judge them internally as assholes, and consider their path to philosophy not one born from questions and curiosity, but instead one born from a need to defend their actions, to defend actions which they felt guilty for.
It worked. I could think of people who took this path as assholes, but I had never put any thought into why one would have such a need to take this path in the first place. That is to say, I didn’t take this path, and as such I never thought deeply on it. And, only recently I sheepishly realized how flawed my own philosophical path was. I didn’t necessarily think at length about the questions of life and come to whatever conclusions I have come to, not by a long shot. Instead I merely looked at my own life–which of course includes the horrible things I see in the news or otherwise–and from that evidence (empiricism, yay) made my conclusions.
Is having an “asshole philosophy” a weakness? It obviously betrays a lack of trust in humanity, but is that something that can be seen as a weakness in the person who comes to such a conclusion? My life has been exceptionally good. Because of this, my general philosophy has been a positive one: don’t fuck with other people. But what of people whose lives have not been good. What reason would they have to believe that, “don’t fuck with other people,” is even remotely applicable? They know all too well that such a philosophy is obviously not going to work because invariably others will fuck with them.
How is it possible for me to judge people when it comes to something as uncertain as philosophy? Yet I cannot shake the notion that people who do feel that might makes right are somehow inferior to me. Force is a trump card. In things large and small it is inarguably a way to get what you want. Granted, it can have consequences, but what of them? If the consequence is that you are then killed or harmed, well that just proves the rule further. If the consequence is that you are suddenly unloved or distrusted, does that necessarily disprove the rule?
What if it does? What if might does not make right simply because you cannot control the thoughts of others, and thus cannot determine how others judge you. That is, perhaps, the ultimate failing point of such a philosophy: you can use it to take physical things, or to inflict pain, but you cannot use it to force someone to believe something you wish them to believe. It took me a while to figure out what I wanted to write in that previous sentence, and in the end it turned out I couldn’t think of a “good” “failing point” of such a philosophy that doesn’t apply to every other philosophy out there: there is nothing you can do, physical or otherwise, that will force someone to believe what you wish them to believe. You can mislead, lie, bribe, threaten, torture, but you cannot change another person’s mind, truly.
And no philosophy is “best” at convincing others. While one man may be turned off at the demonstration of physical force, another may be impressed. While one scoffs at an attempt at reasoning, another may be intrigued.
When I read “A Song of Ice and Fire” I am often upset at how easily some characters are swayed by others, at how quickly lies can turn someone. And though I do still consider myself a pessimist, I temper that with a general attitude of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ That is to say I will approach most new people with the assumption that they are ‘good’ until they prove otherwise. So I am curious: is my philosophy working for me? Were I to exist in the seedy world of Ice and Fire, would I be a pawn in someone else’s game because of my philosophy, or do my wits pick out the flaws in others quick enough that I could avoid such traps. And, indeed, I am rare to open up, but when I sense innocence I tend to display my feelings, and yet feigned innocence is no doubt easy to achieve.
Where do I sit? Am I but a weak minded fool put to use by others, yet driven by my belief that most people are good? Or am I the distrusting curmudgeon who lives a long and unfulfilled life?
What philosophy avoids the pit traps in a world where Nietzsche exists? Must one always be on their guard? Such a dismal place, this. And yet, that is where the excitement of life lies: the pain.
