The other day at Target, I couldn't help but glance at the magazine rack at the checkout. The cover featured Brad and Angelina. Again. They've been the featured couple since their hookup and the news of their ever-expanding family. As I was staring at this cover of two extremely wealthy and successful actors, I wondered, "What would Nietzsche think?" These stars recently seem to be in a competition of who can do the most good in the world. Other than celebrity blunders like Britney or Paris, the new hot topic and obsession is for the do-gooders of Hollywood. It's Oprah versus Angelina versus Bono. Are they really so concerned for the weak, or is there something deeper that's caused this sudden influx in good Samaritans? I really wonder what Nietzsche would think of our A-list Hollywood superstars who seem obsessed with charity work.
The first analysis of stars obsessed with helping those less fortunate than them for Nietzsche would probably be, "This is terrible." The powerful shouldn't be concerned with helping the weak and the overwhelming amount of charity-loving stars just shows how sick our society has become. So in this view, Nietzsche's analysis of our society and the prevailing sickness is true.
But what if they have an ulterior motive? What if the superstars do the charity work for the fame and publicity that goes with it? There was a Law & Order episode involving an actress who had adopted a kid from Africa. Problem was that she accidentally killed the kid and tried to replace him with an African-American baby in hopes that no one would notice. In the end, all that really mattered to the actress was the publicity she got from the adoption; she wasn't really heartbroken over the loss of the first child. It makes you question their motivations. Maybe the A-listers are really doing Nietzsche proud and gaining more power through these "charitable" moves. It's a mean thing to say, but here are people more concerned with the glory of an action rather than the true good of it's outcome. This kind of links back to Leslie's blog on Nietzsche versus Marx, because really, maybe the charity stuff if part of an institution mad to further superstars' power. Charity gains publicity and thaty's hat stars need in their struggle to remain at the top.
Personally, I think that it's a combination. Maybe our society really is sick for being so concerned with the weak. Despite this sickness, however, perhaps the powerful are still power-driven and just adapting to the situation the best way they know how. Since the weak have created the institution of Christianity and such like it, the powerful have learned to manipulate the institution, placate the masses, gain support, and further their own power.
9 comments:
This makes me wonder if there is room for charity in Nietzsche's world. It seems like the idea of helping others for the sake of helping others runs blatantly against what Nietzsche thinks men ought to do. However, if people like Brangelina use charity to improve their own status as Übermensch is this really in contrast with Nietzsche's message?
I think this shows that perhaps there is a way for both charity and the Ubermensch to exist. However, it's unclear to me whether or not this is something Nietzsche would be comfortable with.
Leah:
Your offering the possibility of the powerful "[learning] to manipulate the institution" that the weak have put into play is very intriguing. I don't believe any of us (save Dr. J) have read enough Nietzsche to conclusively say how he would respond to such an idea, but your question does spur me to wonder which of these is more true:
(a) organized religion/church/charity is actually still in the hands of the weak but presented with a strong, authoritative front (i.e. God)
--Ex. the wizard of Oz run by the man behind the curtain
or
(b) the powerful have usurped organized religion/church/charity from the weak, as the powerful are inevitably bound to do in such a case, and have thus "learned to manipulate the institution, placate the masses, gain support, and further their own power"
--Ex. a puppet master pulling the puppet's strings to entertain children
Either way, though, I think Nietzsche's point still stands: morals are created and used as a means to some kind of end, an end which is always beneficial and advantageous to the person "possessing" said morals.
I am pretty sure I have some further tangential questions related to this but need to read some other people's opinions before I can really get that going. Good thoughts though. This will keep me thinking a good bit today.
perhaps evevn Brangelina have an ability as Ubermensch to see in someone the qualities that they possess. While traveling through the wild, dangerous bush in Africa on guided tour, brangelina notice a baby that resembles the traits of the ubermensch. They grab this baby to ensure that his self dictated moral life is complete and is not randomly picked off in the night by a Lion like in the spectacular movie The Ghost and the Darkness. He can be raised in such an environment where one is trained to not think of morality in actions but to do what he wants how he wants it, which will not be a problem considering the possible avuenues to a morally explore with unlimited finanacial income. He will grow up to be a strapping young man and be given a fat check for little work and when brangelina get old, whether they stay together or not(god i pray they do), he will not care for them in their decrepit state, nor send them to a home that will do so for them, becaus ehe has no time for the weak and dying--he has but one goal to live forhimself how he wants to!
I think it's difficult to talk about Nietzsche's Übermensch in any way that's not pretty hypothetical just because of the highly specific way in which Nietzsche describes him (just him, not him or her, because the Übermensch can't be a feeble little ole girl). So, I don't think that Brad and Angelina are what Nietzsche had in mind when writing about the Übermensch and master morality. However, this blog post, like Jen, made me think about how caring for others (or seemingly do to so), charity, and other deeds that us slaves would find "good", fit in with the image of the Übermensch.
Personally, the image that comes to my mind when I think of the Übermensch is a man who is extremely introverted, narcissistic, unbelievably arrogant, and who desires political anarchy. Nietzsche would probably scoff at my negative image of his beloved Übermensch and simply blame my idiocy and ignorance on my slavish morality - but I'm fine with that. I say all of that to say that appearing to be charitable in order to look good to the public - and thus "manipulate the institution, placate the masses, gain support, and further one's own power" (as MJG nicely put it) - does not have to contradict the master morality as long as the "good deeds" are for the sole purpose of continuing in the way of the Übermensch.
There is an argument in ethics against pure altruism, often called "psychological egoism." It's something that a lot of science-based philosophers/writers like Stephen Jay Gould and (I think) Richard Dawkins have taken up: it's the idea that no human can really do something selfless; everything we do can be construed as a selfish act.
Consider the case of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Perhaps they continue to adopt foreign children because, in addition to amplifying their public image as do-gooders, it makes them feel good about themselves.
Furthermore, consider the biological children they've had. I don't keep up with celeb culture enough to know all the facts, but I think that I've heard that the biological children were Brad's idea. From a biological standpoint, this could be Brad attempting to preserve and protect his genes in the form of children.
I'm not really a huge proponent of this viewpoint, as it can get a little tricky, but it is something to consider. It's possible that Brad and Angelina are ubermenschen, simply attempting to make themselves feel good. Maybe.
I agree with Jen. I think Nietzsche created the idea of the Ubermensche believing that there is no room for charity. I think he would claim that the idea of charity is slavish in nature and that truly powerful people, people of the slave morality, would pay very little attention to people in the outside world and therefore would simply not concern themselves with charity. However, in the case of Brad and Angelina, or Brangelina as Mark refers to them, I think there is definitely a case to be made for Leah's argument. I think some of it is done in order to create an image and not so much out of good will and charity. However, I think Nietzsche would consider this slavish as well since creating an image gives a certain degree of credibility to the opinions of others.
Although this post strikes me as a very interesting observation, I would have to disagree almost entirely. The basis for Nietzsche’s “Ubermensch” is designed around one who does not conform to other values and instead creates his own. Thus, charity, as a conceivably “good thing”, notably accepted so by society, cannot be within Nietzsche’s own understanding of an “Ubermensch”. After all, the lack of self-positing-values is why Nietzsche has problems with both the resented (powerful: Brangelina) and the resentful (salve: those whom the powerful commit acts of charity upon). Nietzsche would spurn the charitable attempts of the powerful, arguing that charity is a conforming notion of “good”. Ideally, the word “good” is supposed to be created by the “Ubermensch” according to himself and not a contrived notion-as according to Nietzsche. Therefore, like Jen, I don’t see how there is “room for charity in Nietzsche's world”.
Great post.
Agreeing with a lot of the people before me, it seems clear to me that Nietzsche would say that charity is slavish. The strong won't bother themselves with the weak, because all that will do is show them that they are strong, which they already know. As far as Brad and Angelina, I'm not sure what Nietzsche would say about that. It's definitely a fad in Hollywood nowadays to do these good things, and help people in Africa, etc. But it seems to maybe fall more in line with Heidegger's "They". The way people act when they are part of a group and when they are not reflecting on their own existence is very different, and it seems to take the responsibility off of the individual.
Can we really say that Brad and Angelina are even remotely Ubermensch-like to begin with?
They don't create their own values. They wear their YSL and Ralph Lauren on the red carpet and repeat quotations from books they got off of the Oprah list and all of Brad's favorite artists just "happen" to have come off of the Garden State soundtrack.
These people are not value creating beings. What power they have was not taken but was thrust upon them, and they use it in scattered, ineffective ways.
I think that Neitzsche wouldn't care at all what these slavish people do with their lives. They could adopt an entire African tribe or built a platinum plated cabana in Mexico and waste away with little umbrella drinks for all he cares.
Post a Comment