"We want to become those who we are - the new, the unique, the incomparable,
those who impose on themselves their own law, those who create themselves!
However, spiritual strength and passion, when accompanied by bad manners,
only provoke loathing ..."
I.
Ultimately, the problem with Nietzsche's philosophical project of a revaluation of all values [Umwertung alle Werte] is that it's too demanding, too ambitious. We in the west are never going to become Dionysian and fantasies of a neopagan overturning of Christian morality are probably best left as provocative thought experiments, rather than forming the basis for political action [1].
But what might be possible, however, is a reformation of manners [2] and the adoption once more of an elaborate and sophisticated code of conduct in order to acquire the civility, the charm, and the demeanour of a human being whom one might respect and even admire.
II.
Nietzsche listed politeness as among his four cardinal virtues [3] and stressed the importance of étiquette not merely as a set of rules and conventions governing behaviour imposed by society, but as a form of self-discipline and rank ordering; something which, he says, is as necessary for free spirits as for stars [4].
Whether his thinking owes more to the ceremonial observances of an 18th-century French court, the Laws of Manu, or, indeed, to ancient Egyptian ethics and the teachings of Ptahhotep, is debatable. The crucial point is that it shows a lack of manners, an absence of style, and a want of breeding to stab pensioners or shoot schoolchildren [5].
For if manners maketh man, then a lack of manners, absence of style, and want of breeding produces monsters in our midst ...
Notes
[1] This is the lesson of D. H. Lawrence's novel The Plumed Serpent (1926), which I have discussed elsewhere on Torpedo the Ark: click here.
[2] This phrase (and concept) is not mine; the Reformation of Manners was originally an attempt to impose strict religious discipline on English parishes between the late 1600s and the early 1700s. It was revived as a project in the 1780s by William Wilberforce. Obviously, as a Nietzschean rather than an evangelical Christian, I understand something quite different by the idea to Wilberforce and, like Lord Chesterfield, I think we need to view good manners as something distinct from conventional morality. See Letters to His Son on the Art of Becoming a Man of the World and a Gentleman, (1774): click here to read online as a Project Gutenberg ebook.
[3] See Nietzsche, Daybreak, §556. I discussed the four cardinal virtues in a post published in July 2021: click here
[4] See Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, IX 285.
[5] I'm referring here to the tragic cases of 87-year-old Thomas O'Halloran and 9-year old Olivia Pratt-Korbel; the former was stabbed to death in West London and the latter was killed in her own Merseyside home by an as yet unknown gunman.
Those who call for all the familiar things - introduce more police on the beat, bring back hanging, etc. - would do well to remember what the Roman philosopher Cicero said about the importance of instilling good manners within a people, rather than simply relying upon harsh laws and punishments.
For a related post to this one - on why the reformation of manners is no laughing matter - click here.
As the editors of the Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy edition of 'Daybreak' interestingly explore, the question of traditional mores probably has to be read within Nietzsche's German context, who was interested in an etymological connection between 'Sitte' [custom] and 'Sittlichkeit' [sense of morality/decency], which Nietzsche viewed as an alienated polarity whose prior intimacy built morality in a profound sense via tradition:
ReplyDelete'In comparison with the mode of life of whole millennia we present-day men live in a very immoral [unsittlich] age: the power of custom [Sitte] is astonishingly enfeebled and the sense of morality [Sittlichkeit] so rarefied and lofty it may be described as having more or less evaporated. This is why the fundamental insights into the origins of morality [Moral] are so difficult for us latecomers [...] This is, for example, already the case with the chief proposition: morality [Sittlichkeit ] is nothing other (therefore no more!) than obedience to customs [Sitten], of whatever kind they may be; customs, however, are the traditional way of behaving and evaluating. In things in which no tradition commands there is no morality ...'
To cut to the chase, the editors argue, Nietzsche is here taking Kant’s conception of morality (under the influence of Schophenhauer's materialist critique of Kant) and, so to speak, "naturalizing" it, so that he can tell a story about the origin of morality without invoking a “noumenal” world or any other suspect metaphysical categories'. In that way, he could have his double-decker pious/transcendental/Christian + anti-metaphysical/antagonistic/sceptical cake and eat it.
I imagine killers such as those alluded in the post are following their own pathological imperatives, whether pharmacologically, psychopathically or evilly driven. They will reap as they sow.
Cicero, it appears, was no less respectful of the realm of the gods than most of the ancient Roman world in this domain, seeing morality/good conscience as supernaturally (or superhumanly) overwritten: 'The impulse which directs to right conduct, and deters from crime, is not only older than the ages of nations and cities, but coeval with that Divine Being who sees and rules both heaven and earth.' This is a view of what we moderns still call 'conscience' as the spark of the divine within the human, or else we all become Daleks.
Thanks for providing this wider German philosophical context - and for the biblical proverb (Galatians 6:7).
Delete