Humans Evolving Into Dog-Fleas

Friedrich Nietzsche (From: Wikipedia)

"...[Friedrich] Nietzsche teasingly introduced a character called 'the last man,' a frightening (or flattering, depending on your point of view) possibility for the 'end' of evolution. The last man is the ultimate bourgeois, the satisfied utilitarian, the absolute couch potato. 'We have found happiness,' says the last man, and blinks in dull contentment. This, Neitzsche warns, is also one of our possibilities. We can continue to consume our comforts, minimize dangers, ignore the mysterious and unknown, and discourage creativity, until the world is so safe for us that we will become 'ineradicable, like the dog-flea.' Or, we might strive to become something more than 'human-all-too-human' and aspire to the Ubermensch [superman]." (232) --Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins, A Short History of Philosophy

I would add to the description of the "last man" an obsession with trivial entertainment--whether by television shows, best-selling novels, or sports. I might also add a "last child" for whom being entertained during school lessons is an absolute necessity without which learning simply cannot take place. Entertainment, not knowledge, is the chief priority. To the "last child", I'd also add of course the "last principal" and the "last school" to my description of human evolution gone bad.

On lighter note, if being a Ubermensch means having a mustache like the one above, then sign me up!

The Definition of "Charlatan"

Arthur Schopenhauer (From: Wikipedia)

"[Arthur] Schopenhauer is best known for his pessimism and his curmudgeonly style. His antipathy toward Hegel was so profound that he insisted on teaching courses in the same university at the same times that Hegel gave his lectures. Given Hegel's popularity, Schopenhauer's courses were little attended, and his teaching career came to a quick end. Fortunately, he was independently wealthy and thus able to devote himself to writing books in which he frequently alluded to 'charlatanism,' which, as he clearly explained in footnotes, meant Hegel." (223-224) --Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins, A Short History of Philosophy

It's All In Your Head

George Berkeley (From: Wikipedia)

"[George] Berkeley was quite happy to suppose that there was no substantial world apart from the world in our minds. The world was indeed composed of ideas--a position subsequently known as idealism... If there were no 'external' world to serve as cause of our sensations, where would our sensations and our ideas about the world come from? It is God who must provide them, Berkeley argues. 'To be is to be perceived,' he insists, but everything that exists must therefore be perceived, all the time, by God. (It was regarding Berkeley's philosophy that some wit formulated the old gambit, 'If a tree falls in the forest...') Perhaps what is most remarkable is the fact that Berkeley's philosophy, which denies the material existence of the world, held onto the Lockean claim to be merely a matter of 'common sense.' (How often, in philosophy, would the appeal to common sense end up in nonsense.) The English Doctor Johnson thought that Berkeley's idealism was hardly common sense at all, and kicking a stone he commented to a friend, 'Thus I refute him.'" (196) --Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins, A Short History of Philosophy

The Positives to Religious Proselytization and Amalgamation

"The process of religious synthesis has a philosophical significance larger than the merger of ideas and perspectives. As religions merge and cope with one another on the plane of beliefs and rituals, people are encouraged to deal with one another with increased understanding and tolerance. Indeed, while one might well bemoan the loss of 'pure' and 'original' religious ideas in the amalgamation of newer and more broadly based religious perspectives, one will probably not complain about the consequent lessening of conflict and sectarian hatred that might result." (154) --Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins, A Short History of Philosophy

I have often thought about the sadness of the fact that the religious variety in our world has decreased as Christianity and Islam engage in aggressive mission tactics in the non-Western world. This missionary activity is of course nothing new--it dates more than 500 years back to Columbus. What unique insights into the human condition could all of the now extinct small-scale cultures and religions have provided us with? This makes me sad.

But Solomon and Higgins have reminded us that there are some positive aspects to Christianity and Islam's aggressiveness and tendency to swallow, absorb, or amalgamate smaller cultures and religions. More uniformity of religion, as they point out, results in less conflict and hatred. However, Christianity and Western culture in particular are a double-edged sword. Western military technology has resulted in large-scale violence. (But is the march of progress in science and technology inevitable, such that if one society did not make such advances, another one would?) On the other hand, Christianity has brought with it a high respect for human rights and did not exist in many of the religions it overturned. The world is better without the cannibalism and human sacrifice that once prevailed in societies that are now Christian.

A larger point is that Christianity and Islam are hardly the only religions that have sought to proselytize the world. Buddhism has been spreading throughout the world for more than 2,500 years. Greek culture and religion expanded beyond Greece in the centuries before and after Christ. Manichaeism was a popular and growing religion during St. Augustine's time before it completely died out--have you met any Manichaeans lately? Religion and cultures come and go. Our world is constantly changing despite our sadness over losing interesting parts of our past and culture.

And who can blame Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists or anyone else for their proselytizing efforts to change other people? Would we still be humans without our efforts to convince others of a good idea or what we believe to be the truth? To be thoughtful and inquisitive is part of our nature. We want to believe what is true and we want others to believe the truth as well.

A Heated Debate, But Who Cares?

Bertrand Russell
(From: Wikipedia)

"What if realism were true, but everyone were a nominalist, or vice versa--would there be any difference whatever in the world?" (149) --Bertrand Russell quoted in Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins, A Short History of Philosophy

A little background here: Realism is a metaphysical theory that dates back to Plato. It holds that for all the particular things or attributes in the world with the same appellation (e.g., triangles, white-colored things), there is a corresponding Form or universal that exists in a higher, non-material reality. All of the particular examples of that thing or attribute in the material world exist by participation in the Formal or universal thing. The Form is the perfect ideal by which all instances of it are measured.

Nominalists maintain that there are no Forms or universals existing in a higher reality or anywhere at all. Nominalism dates to the medieval philosopher Peter Abelard, but has similarities with Aristotle's ideas on this matter as well. All that exist are particular, material things and their attributes. For example, there is no Form of a tree through which all trees acquire their essential existence. All that exists are particular trees, despite the fact that we have the same appellation (viz., "tree") for all of them.

This is a highly simplified summary of a fierce debate that has raged for well over 2000 years. But Russell has a point. Is it a major concern for most people how it is that we are capable of using the same adjective "white" to describe many different instances of things with that color? I think probably not.

Men Who Fear the Knife

"Saint Paul Writing His Epistles"
Valentin de Boulogne (1591-1632)
(From: Wikipedia)

"Were Christians still bound by the Law of Moses? Paul's universalism had considerable bearing on this question. As so often, the general question became heated because of a very particular issue. Circumcision was required by Jewish law, so some Christians insisted that Greeks should be circumcised if they wanted to become Christians. Others rejected this idea, considering the ritual unnecessary and cruel, especially for adults. Paul resolved that particular issue by declaring that circumcision was not required for Christians (no doubt evoking a sigh of relief from many male converts)." (120) --Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins, A Short History of Philosophy