I have always had conflicting feelings about Nietzsche, as I think one should. On the one hand he is a founder of subjectivity – to which I am indebted – while he has some dangerous notions about the world which, more important to my discussion, are erroneous. The two I shall discuss are the will to power and the Superman. His philosophy is meant to provoke, and I feel I've been lifted to greater clarity.
I'm sure this is a tired discussion , but I feel compelled to enter the fray, nor can I claim and objective stake in this discussion. Whether it’s The Good, God, Capital, Class Struggle, Nature, or the Will to Power, one of the unfortunate facts about human history is are continual search for one unitary identity .Nietzsche is right to oppose Plato's, and his students, negation of the body. Yet he just substitutes one ultimate organizing principle for another. The notion of the will to power presupposes both an idea of will and an idea of power. If one of the purposes of Nietzsche's reflections is to cause us to question knowledge, how do we know that a will to power exists or even that a will exists. Nietzsche says we know this from experience, but it is less childish to speak of multiple wills that are interconnected, to such an extent that it is impossible to ascertain one single motivation for human action. Indeed, Nietzsche suggests that most things are in a state of flux, yet he does not take this argument far enough. For it is the very fact that we lack one single drive but instead, are an ever adapting matrix of interconnected modes of being (some of which may share a common source and others of which may not) that makes us human. There is a danger of imposing motivations on a human being that to some extent, negate (or at least contradict) her stated intention, since it deprives her of agency. This I think is the great irony of Nietzsche: he singularizes the will, in order to exhort human beings to freedom – how can this be? While dispensing with Cartesian dualism, he instead creates a binary of power, which at times, fails to recognize power’s fluidity. In this vein, I also think he does not duly consider power that is not generated exclusively through relationships but alternate forms of power partially begotten of the self that have been strengthened by contingency.
Perhaps why I often stridently object to Nietzsche is because – appropriating Marx's phrase – his specter looms large over disability today. I take issue with (post?)-Modernity’s emphasis on self-sufficiency and individualism. Technology allows persons who have extensive disabilities to exist; this social fact at once affirms modernity, while also contradicting it. Since persons with disability’s existence is at once born of progress and its failings, persons with disabilities are less able to exist as self-contained human beings, and thus – to a greater extent than most persons – they require assistance from others for agency. Nietzsche – and to a large extent society – views this increased contingency as a mark of weakness, yet it can provide strength through communion. In fact, in one respect, persons with disabilities only highlight the frailty of human existence. Despite Man's cunning and accomplishments, one blood vessel ruptured in my motor cortex and permanently crippled my body. To be sure, all human beings confront an analogous process, when facing aging and death, yet disability differs from this because of its duration. I often, therefore, become an emblem of person’s inability to hide both from themselves and from others. While I'm sympathetic to certain ideas about the Superman, and often find myself trying to live out, a "super-crip" archetype in response, there is a certain type of power coming from authentic dependent relationships, in which both partners hounor the freedom and dignity of the other agent, while placing themselves at genuine risk. If I ask for something (and genuinely need it), while respecting the other person’s right to say no, I have gained power that the Superman cannot experience: for I have an authentic stake in the outcome, while having enough strength of will to respect the power of the other person. That is, I exist as an individual free agent while simultaneously affirming my status as a social being, and both these things are necessary for meaningful freedom and power. Such a relationship of dependence for both partners creates power that is – in part – begotten of the self, since both parties engage in the voluntary act of ego restriction, in order for the relationship to function. The Superman cannot engage in this duality: at his core, he must look only to himself and, therefore, is an impoverished and weak man.
Furthermore, unless the vast majority of society is exceptionally weak (which I suppose Nietzsche would claim), efforts made to incorporate persons with disabilities into communal life undermine his hypothesis. Within the context of disabled able-bodied interaction, the amount of effort to allow me to function in an equal manner may not in a strict sense equal the benefit I am able to give, nor will the inconvenience likely equal the pleasure the other person may derive from exerting power over me – to what end?. Yet I exist, as a fairly successful social being, and any extensive inquiry into my utility or the pleasure that my weakness may provide others amounts to a reductio ad absurdum. I do think there are certain truths about life that we can attain through evidence and reason. And one of those truths is: while a person must constantly justify what he does, in light of his social nature, he must never be placed vis-à-vis society, so that he must justify his own Being. This Being, however fluid, is intrinsic to him. What is required is a multilateral metaphysics of interdependence. This seems to be consistent with my experience, tradition, ecology, human physiology and the little I know of quantum physics. For me there is a certain divinity in sacrifice and power in contingency, ignorance of which cripples the Superman. If I'm a slave to anything, it is my very short but rare experience in a particular community on this our ever-changing and fragile Earth. I make no apologies.
Furthermore, unless the vast majority of society is exceptionally weak (which I suppose Nietzsche would claim), efforts made to incorporate persons with disabilities into communal life undermine his hypothesis. Within the context of disabled able-bodied interaction, the amount of effort to allow me to function in an equal manner may not in a strict sense equal the benefit I am able to give, nor will the inconvenience likely equal the pleasure the other person may derive from exerting power over me – to what end?. Yet I exist, as a fairly successful social being, and any extensive inquiry into my utility or the pleasure that my weakness may provide others amounts to a reductio ad absurdum. I do think there are certain truths about life that we can attain through evidence and reason. And one of those truths is: while a person must constantly justify what he does, in light of his social nature, he must never be placed vis-à-vis society, so that he must justify his own Being. This Being, however fluid, is intrinsic to him. What is required is a multilateral metaphysics of interdependence. This seems to be consistent with my experience, tradition, ecology, human physiology and the little I know of quantum physics. For me there is a certain divinity in sacrifice and power in contingency, ignorance of which cripples the Superman. If I'm a slave to anything, it is my very short but rare experience in a particular community on this our ever-changing and fragile Earth. I make no apologies.
