Ryan Conway

12/10/2012
Masters of Suspision
In order to achieve a state where many people can realize their strong wills and desires,
without restricting the autonomy of portions of our population, we should strive for an
environment conducive to self-reflection and continuous critical assessment of our beliefs,
interests, and desires. The dissolution of self-evident truths in legal practice, governing
institutions, education, and daily interactions with other beings is a salient step. A mutable and
adaptable system that is as transparent as possible would bring about a shift in thought and
practice. I believe that if humanity is to survive the next thousand years, esp. with a rapidly
growing population, we must strive to understand our internal motivations and desires and
make them articulate and clear.
Marx purposes that the origin of much of our suffering stems from the hierarchal and
exploitive structure of capitalism. This self-motivated, production and profit system treats the
human subject as a commodity; a machine to be used. He suggests that a shift away from
institutionalized capitalism will alleviate many of our social dissatisfaction and pain. He explains
that the class struggle and exploitation originates in this institutionalized capitalist ideal that
everyone can become a member of the bourgeoisie (the ruling class). Marx continues by
explaining that this is an unachievable goal. In reality the preservation of the wealthy, free, and
strong bourgeoisie relies on the labor of the proletariat (producing) class. Marx suggests that an
inevitable revolution will occur. The dissatisfied proletariats will eventually rise up and
overthrow the exploitative bourgeoisie. This inversion of power will provide us the opportunity
to eliminate class stagnation and conflict. Marx suggests that we should revolutionize the
distribution of wealth and property so that all members of the society have equal access to
economic and social goods. His idea is that this will lift the constraints placed on the
proletariats autonomy and allow them to actualize and realize their desires and wills.
Institutionalized capitalism does preserve the hierarchal structure of our society. It
works to keep those with power, powerful, while simultaneously serving to constrict the
autonomy of those without power and economic wealth. It would be nice if Marx was right and
an inevitable revolution assisted us in the transcendence of tragedy and suffering (This is not
necessarily what Marx purposes.) Unfortunately, Nietzsche complicates the idea that the cause
of suffering, and lack of freedom, originates in this structured capitalist state. He suggests that
structure itself is a constraint on our autonomy and that we may be the origin of our own
suffering. Naturally, humanity is animal. We have instinctual desires and needs that do not
follow form or structure; they are anarchistic. They are not categorizable or recognizable by our
governing institutions, laws, codes, rules, regulations, or even our language. Nietzsche suggests
that our suffering comes from our fear of the other. We are afraid of others instincts and
desires. We create institutionalized methods of suppressing the autonomy of persons who wish
to achieve desires that are outside our own system of understanding. We fear that the
realization of these other goals will directly interfere with our own desires and wills. If we
accept that pain, death, and suffering are an essential part of life and existence, and cease the
attempts to constrain our desires will we fall into a state of chaos? Can we have a balance
between structure and autonomy; order and chaos?
Nietzsche believes that our social world consists of a plethora of wills and desires. We are
influenced and shaped by the imposition of many, even competing wills, and our interpretation
and interaction with them. Certain people create an idea of what they want and implement a
method of achieving that goal. If they are free enough they can impose their will onto reality.
These strong-willed members of our social world are the active movers. They implement and
shape the way we look at and perceive the world around us. Many strong willed persons lack
the autonomy to enact their will. They wish to satisfy a desire but they are rejected by the
dominant social world. There are also weak-willed persons, who lack the self-reflexive ability to
develop and implement their own will. They acquire a belief surrounding an external will or
desire. They take an idea that has been imposed upon them, do not reflect on this will, and
internalize it as if it was their own. People value their beliefs and take them as self evident
truths. This is the source of herd-mentality. This type of weak-willing creates followers and
believers. It is how strong willed persons gain social power. If we open this space up, and allow
many, if not all, members the autonomy to achieve their strong-willed desires, we will see
tyrannical rulers and peaceful social movements gain power and momentum. The same power
dynamics are involved with all wills to power. This is the source of our fear. We want to
preserve a state of things that allows the good to gain power, while simultaneously devaluing
and rejecting the power of the bad. Nietzsche once again complicates this idea by rejecting
the notion of a consistent and objective morality. Our conceptions of good and bad are
historically and socially contingent, and lack definite or inherent form.
How should we go about handling our fear of the other without limiting the autonomy of
portions of our population? The weak-willed herd mentality is a source of power for the strong
willed members. Unfortunately, the weak willed are in denial about their own intention and
will. They adopt readymade wills, without critically thinking about them. These people are
complacent; the will that is imposed upon them, they internalize, as a belief, without critically
and continuously reflecting upon themselves. In other words, they adopt a will and begin to
desire what that will wants. The weak-willed crave the position they are told to yearn for and
nothing more. To ground this in the material world; a slave desires to be a slave, a producer to
be a producer, and a consumer to be a consumer only because they are told that is what they
really want. Without self-reflection and the development of personal desires outside of this
framework, these people will never escape their social position. They will also wholeheartedly
adopt and reinforce strong-wills without critical reflection. The source of social power comes
from these people and they arent even thinking about their role in the continuation of certain
forms of power! When a tyrant imposes their strong-will these sick persons adopt the tyrants
will for them to be subjugated and obedient, as if its what they have always wanted!
Unfortunately, critical and continuous self reflection is a difficult and painful process that
demands the loss of identity.
The loss of identity is a crucial step in becoming. Many people have internalized a system of
values as self-evident truths (they believe). These beliefs shape the way in which the subject
shapes and interprets the object. These beliefs shape who the subject is; it is their identity,
their foundation, their first principles. To come to the realization that there is no objective and
independent justification for holding these beliefs is terrifying. This realization strips away
inherent meaning and value to anything in our world. This conclusion leads some people to the
idea that all actions they have taken in their life time are meaningless and serve no real
purpose. Many fall into a state of deep nihilism. A strong-willed person is one who falls into a
state of meaninglessness and is able to interject their own interpretational meaning onto the
world. A weak-willed person does not question their apparent values and convictions. They
fear not having a foundation or identity from which they can interact in the world in a manner
that is good, right, justified, ethically and socially acceptable, or any other apparent value
judgment. We fear losing our selves to meaninglessness and nihilism. We find comfort in
stability and complacency. To adopt things as Truths provides a space from which we can make
ethical and morally justified decisions. Unfortunately, this is a faulty foundation that lacks
substantial certainty. To make decisions and take actions based off an apparent truth,
without continuously and critically assessing the action, its implications, personal motivations,
etc. is to remain ignorant and comfortable. But even the comfortable can experience pain,
suffering, and discontent, they simply place the blame on the other.
One must by all means stretch out ones fingers and make the attempt to grasp this amazing
finesse, that the value of life cannot be estimated. Not by the living for they are an interested
party, even a bone of contention, and not judges; not by the dead, for a different reason. For a
philosopher to see a problem with the value of life is thus an objection to him. - (Nietzsche,
Twilight of the Idols, Pg. 475. [The problem with Socrates, sec. 1])
Does Marx actually believe that his system is a plausible solution to the sufferings of the
world? Or does he simply believe that it would create an environment more suitable for more
community based interaction and critical creation of desires? If on an individual level, we are all
equally autonomous (based on goods), will people develop a thirst for self-reflection and critical
analysis of alternate desires, and intention? Or should we accept that weak-wills and non-
reflexive people will be an inevitable portion of our epistemic reality and social world? If people
feel as if everything is much larger and carries a lot more momentum and power than
themselves, they would not value their own opinion enough to self-reflect and be critical of
themselves and others. We have to come to the realization that things with power are generally
illegitimate and unjustified. As people, in a social world, we have the ability to contribute and
reinforce that power or to work against certain ideals that have negative consequences.
Humans have the unbridled ability to desire, want, and have interest in things. With this ability
we should think, Do I really want to contribute to a form of power? or has some external
source indoctrinated be with the belief that I want this.
I think it is very important to think about how we educate our children through this
context. Many schools teach kids the facts. We teach our children, in an institutionalized
method that treats facts as inherently True and self-evident (as if they show themselves to us).
They are told to study, define, and learn with certainty and conviction. Their ability to graduate
with a degree and become a successful member of society depends on their ability to
regurgitate these facts on standardized tests. These exams are usually conducted in a
multiple-choice format that requires little to no critical assessment and reflection. They are
taught that there is one right answer out of a set of options. If they interpret the question
differently, answer the question incorrectly, or do not answer at all, they fail. If they continue
to fail in this manner students are often excluded from social groups, thought of as inferior, and
are rejected from further education and work. Instead of attempting to indoctrinate a singular
answer to every question, and threaten children with failure and stupidity, schools, teachers,
and educators should strive to demonstrate that the answers we provide are fallible and only
arrived at through a particular perspective. Instead of standardized multiple choice exams, and
formatted curriculums, we could develop a mutable system. A system that acknowledges, that
as teachers, we are also subject to being wrong and ignorant to alternative ways of perceiving
and interacting with the world. If children understand that there is not an end point to
knowledge (you cannot simply obtain it), but knowledge is a continual process of becoming. We
have the amazing and unrestricted ability to alter our convictions and beliefs.
Although value judgments can never be justified, and hold no inherent value or truth, I
believe these are a necessary component of our lives. Without interjection of value onto things
it would become a very arduous and difficult process to survive. Without understanding that
things that cause pain, injury, or harm are bad, we are more likely to get killed off. To ensure
our survival, we shy away from certain things that could cause us harm. Fortunately, for some
of us in America, our lives are not filled with things that want to kill us. We have the time and
the luxury to talk about these ideas, write papers, read books, play, and enjoy/analyze life. Our
experience here is luxurious in comparison to other places on Earth or in anothers body. The
value judgments we make are based in this luxurious experience. We label things as good and
bad, without taking into account the experience of those who are not having the same
luxurious experience. In other words, it is okay to make the judgment that something is good,
but we must understand that this judgment is not a self-evident truth. It is fallible and subject
to radical change. We are in a continuous process of becoming, where our belief, desires, wills
can be critically approached and shaped. For instance, many companies tell us, To buy this
product is good. In order to proceed, I think of this judgment as a will, a desire of the people
in the company to sell a product. Weak-willed persons would not think about alternatives and
different conceptions of what is good. They internalize this belief and buy the product, taking
for granted, all of the implications and motivations of the companys value judgment. A strong
willed person reflects on this will and asks critical questions regarding the value judgment:
Why is buying this product good? What are the consequences of making this purchase? How
should I proceed, if someone is being exploited and taken advantage of for me to have the
privilege to buy this product? Who is benefiting from my purchase and what are their
motivations? In other words, the strong meditate, ponder, question, and maintain a skeptical
and critical approach to value judgments of any kind.
It is important to remember that a system of organization and categorization, that lacks
certainty and inherent truth, is subject to radical change. We have the ability to be self-
reflexive, and critical of the current state of things. With this ability, comes our facility to enact
change onto this world. A re-estimation and re-organization of thoughts and practices is not
only possible it is inevitable. Our self-reflexive ability allows us to interpret our position in the
social environment. The current organization of our meaning and value is deeply rooted in
hierarchical thought and practice. We create categories of epistemological and functional
understanding. As humans we interject judgments of value onto these categories (good, bad,
ugly, beautiful, etc.). We internalize these values as self-evident truths through experiential
repetition and habit. These statements of value set up hierarchal structures. The value
judgments we place on things, although functional, are not inherent, and can be completely
arbitrary to a person with a completely different set of experiences. If we have the ability to
acknowledge this about the world, and we take part in the creation of conceptual models of
truth, we also have the ability to change the structures that reinforce this deeply rooted
privileging. If we are in a continuous state of becoming, both individually and socially, and we
have the ability to reflect on this process, we can also shape it in a manner that does not
perpetuate the denial of the existence, and the devaluing, of certain conceptions of truth and
experiences.
Is it possible to see beyond, ones own experiences and desires? We tend to define
things that fall outside our system of understanding irrational and nonsensical. How do we
escape a system of intelligibility or an epistemological paradigm? Heideggers idea of an
authentic being is one who looks beyond their own experiences and understanding. This
authentic and honest person recognizes the fallibility of their own conclusions and looks to
proliferate and accumulate many vantage points for perceiving and shaping the world. This
authentic being actively works to strip away his or her convictions and beliefs. They look to see
the intention based motivation for holding certain claims to truth. They are constantly self-
reflexive and critical of their own position and beliefs. This is a continuous process that requires
the subject to always look beyond their current beliefs and convictions. Those who Heidegger
would call authentic, are members of society that recognize that a person with the experience
of many perspectives and positions is more fit to make a value judgment.
A problem with the proliferation of many alternative perspectives and conceptions of
truth is that many of these will conflict with one another. Is conflict resolution easily achieved if
members of an argument both recognize the fallibility of their positions? How do we reorganize
or restructure our values and judgments to allow for innovation, communication, and conflict
resolution without ignoring and rejecting portions of our population, and without falling into a
state of chaos and disorder? First of all, our human constructed dichotomous, categorizations
of order and chaos do not accurately and certainly describe the reality that we are
experiencing. Order and structure in one epistemological structure is complete chaos in
another. Existence is not nearly as simple, even within the appearance of order and structure,
there is chaos and disorder. Within chaos, there is order as well. We refuse to accept chaos as a
natural part of our lives, because many of us believe (internalization of a value judgment) that
order is actually an independent and achievable reality. With this in mind, should we accept
that some people experience this world very differently and because of this have different
desires, needs, and actions? How do we go about accepting conflict and chaos without
completely abandoning ordered and structured life? Aesthetic expression may be a plausible
outlet. How do we make the unfamiliar and strange comfortable and familiar? An aesthetic
space allows for free expression of ideas and perspectives. Unfortunately it is still possible to
ignore and disregard certain forms of art as not valuable. Even when the aesthetically
uncomfortable is thrown into public space, it is often ignored, misinterpreted, and rejected.
The internet and new forms of communication that allow us to redefine meaning and
relationships may also make the foreign less unknown. Once a complex and compatible mode
of communication and exchange of meaning is developed, critical assessment of many
perspectives should occur. This is difficult and painful because a loss of identity may occur
through this process.
A truly authentic being, is one who chooses to throw themselves into radically different
environments and experiences. It is this person who will attempt to understand experience
outside of what keeps them comfortable. Unfortunately, many people are not authentic.
People feel comfortable and safe in what is known. To remove yourself from this knowledge
is scary, dangerous, and uncomfortable. Some feel an overwhelming loss of identity and
alienation from what was once known. This is a difficult transition and many people go through
an intense stage of nihilism before they are able to continually reconfigure their values and
system of intelligibility. Philosophers, like Nietzsche, attempt to place people into this
uncomfortable feeling of unknowing. How do we go about convincing people that this
unknowing is something to admire and value; that those who are willing to accept their
fallibility are more fit to make judgments of any kind? There are also members of our social
environment that acknowledge their privileged and powerful position in society and are willing
to enact cruelty and oppression for the advancement of their own position in the hierarchical
structure. These people do not feel sympathy for those they burden and exploit. They accept
that by continuing to live in the manner by which they are accustomed, they are implementing
cruelty and suffering, and regardless, choose to live in this manner out of comfort, habit, and a
desire to have power over others. In a system built around the abstract notion of self-interest,
where people are rewarded for acting in their best interest, (our current conception of
capitalism) we will continue to raise our children to adhere to this belief that we are naturally
and universally self-interested. We must if we want to build a world that has enough
epistemological space for many beings, accept our privileged position as a self-reflexive and
moderately autonomous entity, and ensure that our desires, wills, and actions leave space for
others to realize and actualize their desires and wills. We must also be very critical of desires
and actions that work to devalue and limit the autonomy of persons in the social world. If we
can radically change our conception of the meaning of truth, knowledge, and objectivity and
our relationship as knowers, we can work to expand the epistemological space. This
expansion can cause dramatic changes in our social environment. Innovation, communication,
collaboration, and problem-solving become a continuous and apparent process. We have the
self-reflexive ability to enrich and expand our experience in this life.
Expose yourself; allow your identity to shift with new experience. Make attempts to put
yourself in new experience. Understand that we are always Becoming!


Works Cited:
1) Nietzsche, Friedrich. On The Genealogy of Morals. Edited By Walter Kaufmann,
Translated by Rj Hollingdale. New York: A Division Of Random House INC., 1989
2) Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Twilight of the Idols. Edited and Translated by, Walter
Kaufmann. New York: The Viking Press, 1954
3) Marx, Karl. Engles. The Marx-Engels Reader. The Communist Manifesto. Edited by,
Robert C. Tucker. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company
4) Freud, Sigmund. Beyond The Pleasure Principle. Translated and Edited by, James
Strachey. New York, London: W.W. Norton & Company
5) Heidegger, Martin. Being & Time. Translated and Edited by, John Macquarrie & Edward
Robinson. New York, London, Toronto, Sydney, New Delhi, Auckland: Harper & Row
Publishers, Inc. 1962