Totalitarian Individualism Essay Example for Free

Totalitarian Individualism Essay Thesis:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Through the analysis of Hannah Arendt`s The Origins of Totalitarianism,   Frederick Nietzche`s Morality as Anti-Nature, and contemporary philosopher Scott Adam’s God’s Debris, this author will shed light on the human desire to follow trend, and validate Nietzche’s argument that devout faith in cause is the product of anxiety about the unknown.   This anxiety requires that their must be some form of structure, not necessarily full on totalitarianism, but not a society full of free thinking individuals either. Introduction:   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, he speaks on the origins of racism and what eventually led to Nazism.   He argues that the movement Hitler was able to form started as the result of apathetic and neutral masses that were oblivious to workings of their governments.   It is this type of majority that he credits as being the main provider of opportunity for a totalitarian minority to rule.   He talks about the social necessities for totalitarianism to strive, noting that those who aspire to total domination must liquidate all spontaneity, such as the mere existence of individuality will always engender, and track it down in its most private forms, regardless of how unpolitical and harmless these may seem (Arendt) The main focus of this ideology is to make one whole unit operating in the same given direction with absolutely no individual diverging parts.   Though Arendt acknowledges this to be a political tactic starting within national cultures and then working its way outward, the ideals inherent with this system of control are very telling about the human nature, and the human tendency to follow trend and form groups. This concept is very compatible with Scott Adam’s argument in his book God’s Debris. Adam’s initially presents his novel as a replacement for modern religions that find it hard to accommodate science within their canons.   He markets it as a new age creed to be followed by the next generation of masses.   Ironically, I fell for his ploy until reading Nietzche.   Scott Adams’ novel has become highly talked about and critically acclaimed in the contemporary philosophical community since its publication in 2001. In the introduction, he describes his novel as a thought experiment that poses philosophical questions to the common stances held in both religion and science.   The key argument of the book is: the purpose of life is to create communication systems (i.e. the internet, the radio and television).   As convincing as his novel is it is very clear that it adheres to some totalitarian ideals, and also to the human desire to know the cause of existence. Analysis: The Bible poses that God made man in his image. Scott Adams identifies with this concept in that he views god as an entity that thinks like man.   He argues, if God is all knowing, than the only thing God wouldnt know is what would life be like without he/she/itself. (Adams, pg14)    This curiosity leads to Gods self destruction and is Adams explanation for the Big Bang Theory.   This is very ironic considering that Nietzche argues that man is anxious about the unknown.   He says, with the unknown, one is confronted with danger, discomfort, and care,—the first instinct is to abolish [wegzuschaffen] these painful states (Nietzche, 5).   This is the first point where Adam’s argument is lacking, because he is treating God like a man and having him act exactly as a man would in this position.   Since the Big Bang is credited for the creation of the universe, Adams comes to the conclusion that we are all Gods Debris reforming God again. The again in the statement is key, because it poses the possibility that this is not the first time any of this has happened. Of course, until there is a universe, there can be no such thing as time. Plus, it only makes sense that God would be in a continuous cycle of self-destruction and rebirth, since everything else we are used to in our natural world operates in cycles. The main purpose of Adam’s argument is to pose that we are all attempting to form into one all knowing being through the creation of communication systems.   He is essential promoting a global form of totalitarianism.   He has also basically explained the meaning of life and the cause of creation.   This is all very comforting for one unfamiliar with Nietzche, who says, to derive something unknown from something familiar relieves, comforts, and satisfies, besides giving a feeling of power (Nietzche, 5).   This statement is true, because after first reading Adam’s ideology on creation I felt very powerful like I had the answer to the eternal question.   I literally felt like I was contributing to something larger than myself and that was my core purpose in life. I also no longer felt like an individual, but insignificant unless I was a contributing to the whole.   This feeling I felt even furthermore validates the view that Adam’s theory is one in the pursuit of global totalitarianism.   Arendt justifies it when he says, any neutrality, indeed any spontaneously given friendship, is from the standpoint of totalitarian domination just as dangerous as open hostility, precisely because spontaneity as such, with its incalculability, is the greatest of all obstacles to total domination over man (Arendt).    Here Arendt points out that a totalitarian system can not permit any individuality whatsoever; and by Adam’s definition, God can’t be reformed until every being knows what the others know.   His view does not promote racism, but it does imply the alienation of anyone unwilling to conform with the expectations of the information age.    Arendt goes on to explain what totalitarian systems do to individuals like this with an example from the Nazi regime: if he is purged from the party and sent to a forced-labor or a concentration camp. On the contrary, to the wonder of the whole civilized world, he may even be willing to help in his own prosecution and frame his own death sentence (Arendt).   This is only the natural fellowship that forms when people congregate, and it has all of the symptoms of a cult. The main thing that both the Nazi regime and Adam’s theory have in common, are its use of God as a core motivator.   With god as the center of Adam’s argument, there is a sense of obligation to adhere to his laws.   This is very similar to the Nazi regime that felt it was chosen by God as the racial elite to purge the world of those who were inferior.   Nietzche acknowledges the powerful hold that God has on the rational of man.   In fact, it is the entire theme of Morality as Anti-Nature.   He says: the world does not form a unity either as a sensorium or as spirit—that alone is the great liberation; with this alone is the innocence of becoming restored The concept of God was until now the greatest objection to existence We deny God, we deny the responsibility in God: only thereby do we redeem the world. (Nietzche, 8) Basically arguing that to deny God is to liberate oneself from burden, his argument has a very ironic undertone considering the number of wars that have been declared in God’s name, and the vast number of people who sacrifice their happiness to do what they deem to be God’s will.   The prime example of this is World War II.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The key argument that both Arendt and Neitzche propose is that some people have weaker wills than others.   Arendt argues this when he points out that the societies most vulnerable to totalitarian governments are those that have a non caring apathetic majority.   Those who don’t have the will power to get involved with their own governments, or to make a conscious effort to vote, these people tend to be taken advantage of and eventually disregarded by powerful totalitarian structures formed under their noses. Neitzche argues this notion when he says, †¦in the fight against a craving—castration, extirpation—is instinctively chosen by those who are too weak-willed, too degenerate, to be able to impose moderation on themselves; by those who are so constituted that they require ‘la Trappe’ (Nietzche,2).   Here he identifies that some people need to have a structure forced upon them by nature, because they are too weak minded to think for themselves.   They have no choice but to follow trend, or Hitler, whichever it may be.   Ironically, what Neitzche and Arendt deem to be weak will, Socrates refers to as ignorance and credits it as the cause for evil. Socrates was a man filled with faith in human nature.   Socrates’ philosophy of human nature doing evil was that a person only does evil in ignorance, for he believed everyone, just as himself wants only what is good.   The source of someone doing evil is brought about by unlimited desire.   Something that goes unmitigated becomes possessive of that person and they in turn want, and want, without satiation.   This is when the appetitive part of the soul (the part of the soul that wants sex, food, etc.) overtakes the rational (part seeking truth, and reason) of the soul resulting in moral weakness or akrasia. This idea is very compatible with the opening line of Morality as Anti-Nature, when Neitzche says, all passions have a phase when they are merely disastrous, when they drag down their victim with the weight of stupidity (Neitzche, 1).   Though Socrates and Neitzche agree on this aspect, they would disagree on Neitzche’s point that God should be disregarded.   In Neitzche’s defense Aristotle argued that by Socrates inciting a belief in God, he was also placing too much blind faith in the human nature to be virtuous.   It is no wonder why religious canons focus so much of their effort on regulating pleasure and passion; and as Scott Adam’s shows God can still be used to herd people in a totalitarian direction, even today.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   In sum, confronting this idea that to deny God is to liberate one’s self, it brings up many questions.   Theoretically speaking, if there is no God, what is their to prevent chaos, but the structure of man made law and a totalitarian society?   Even if God is used as a catalyst to erupt corrupt governments, these governments keep more piece than chaos can bring. It is the anxiety of the people that needs to be controlled, the anxiety of what life would be like without governmental control, the anxiety of what life would be like without God.   Though Nietzche speaks rationally for the individual who wants complete freedom, his words are lost on the Arendt’s masses, and especially those who devoutly follow the Reich.   The only hope within acknowledging that all societies’ sanity reside in the use of a mildly totalitarian system, is to have some citizens who pride themselves on being free thinking individuals, a totalitarian individualist culture. Work Cited Adams, Scott. Gods Debris. Kansas City: Andrews McMeel Publishing, 2004. Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Schocken, 2004. Nietzsche, Friedrich et.al. Twilight of the Idols. New York: Penguin Books, 1990. Plato. Complete Works. Ed. John M. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1997