Ruthless or Fearless: You choose.
June 12th 2008 01:46
Ruthless or Fearless: You choose.
If you had one chance in life to be Napoleon to do so something great and all that stood in your way was a single murder, would you do it?
This is the same question posed by Dostoyevsky in Crime and Punishment. It is a question that offers so many levels of understanding about the way people try to resolve their desires for greatness as opposed to their fears of consequences. At the basis of this question is fear: the fear of being forgotten in history; the fear of being insignificant; the fear of being unknown; the fear of being no better than the mediocrity. In the choice of being considered one of the masses and one of the greats who would not prefer to be one of the greats?
There is an argument forwarded by many people that in the scale of things one life does not matter that much. A single human life when compared to many is a small sacrifice as long as we are chasing the Greater Good. Who defines what the Greater Good is anyone’s guess. Yet Greatness is often defined in who is remembered by history. The great poets; the great artists, inventors, scientists, philosophers, generals, emperors are all remembered and committed to annals of history. When living a life many strive for greatness so that they can join this exclusive group but only a few make it. Nietzsche was of the opinion that it was because some people could do what was required to rise above humanity and the rest just basically stumbled in the bog. All glory to the Superman who has boarded the ship of greatness then promptly pulls up the plank to prevent the stumblers from following. “Pull up the plank I am aboard.” Or as Nietzche says himself, “The weak and botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it” and later insists, “Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of “equal” rights..” From the Antichrist.
You can ask yourself: What would Napoleon do? The answer would certainly involve divisions of men, cannons and then counting the dead as little more than lost chess pieces. We have more stumblers in the bog that fell upon their deserved fate. So many people have asked that same question and answered in the manner that has bathed the world in blood. Carl Marx followed a similar line of reasoning when he claimed that he had discovered the laws of history. He claimed that history only remember two kinds of people the very good and the very bad yet went on to define who he saw as the very good as the progressive and everyone else as reactionaries. The popular misconception that there is such a thing as the progressive evolution of history is in a large part a legacy of this axiom. In Marxism progressives are the heroes of the cause until they fall out of favour and are replaced with new progressives. The ends justify the means where as Marx insisted that anything that is against the Utopian state is lie and anything that supports the state cannot be a lie. The revolution was just a passing phase of bloodiness before we are able to share in the Worker’s Paradise and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
It was Shakespeare that wrote perhaps the best condemnation of the Ends Justifying the Means axiom. “Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;” from Hamlet. We look at an ambition where people stand in the way and wonder what must be done to remove those pesky people. To kill another human requires some way of overcoming the resistance to do so. It is not natural thing to murder someone haplessly and without provocation. To kill another for mere profit is to put profit above the value of human life. People wrestle with conscience as did Shakespeare’s Richard 111 when he uttered "O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!" Conscience is seen as the coward that slows the hand to murder and stops people from the freedom of being ruthless.
A truly ruthless and unconscionable person is an oddity that stands out like a warning to others. "Please avoid this person and any others like them." Yet history, which we seems to always fail to learn from itself, manages to repeat itself and present the next monster for us to escape. Perhaps courage does not so much exist in being free of all conscience after all? What need do have we in being remembered in the pages of history written with a quill dipped in the blood that we have spilt? I am very comfortable with being held in contempt by all the great Napoleon's of the world.
To be Ruthless as a beast.
If you had one chance in life to be Napoleon to do so something great and all that stood in your way was a single murder, would you do it?
This is the same question posed by Dostoyevsky in Crime and Punishment. It is a question that offers so many levels of understanding about the way people try to resolve their desires for greatness as opposed to their fears of consequences. At the basis of this question is fear: the fear of being forgotten in history; the fear of being insignificant; the fear of being unknown; the fear of being no better than the mediocrity. In the choice of being considered one of the masses and one of the greats who would not prefer to be one of the greats?
No need to think if you are one of masses.
There is an argument forwarded by many people that in the scale of things one life does not matter that much. A single human life when compared to many is a small sacrifice as long as we are chasing the Greater Good. Who defines what the Greater Good is anyone’s guess. Yet Greatness is often defined in who is remembered by history. The great poets; the great artists, inventors, scientists, philosophers, generals, emperors are all remembered and committed to annals of history. When living a life many strive for greatness so that they can join this exclusive group but only a few make it. Nietzsche was of the opinion that it was because some people could do what was required to rise above humanity and the rest just basically stumbled in the bog. All glory to the Superman who has boarded the ship of greatness then promptly pulls up the plank to prevent the stumblers from following. “Pull up the plank I am aboard.” Or as Nietzche says himself, “The weak and botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it” and later insists, “Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of “equal” rights..” From the Antichrist.
An appeal to courage or an appeal to the fear of being seen a coward?
You can ask yourself: What would Napoleon do? The answer would certainly involve divisions of men, cannons and then counting the dead as little more than lost chess pieces. We have more stumblers in the bog that fell upon their deserved fate. So many people have asked that same question and answered in the manner that has bathed the world in blood. Carl Marx followed a similar line of reasoning when he claimed that he had discovered the laws of history. He claimed that history only remember two kinds of people the very good and the very bad yet went on to define who he saw as the very good as the progressive and everyone else as reactionaries. The popular misconception that there is such a thing as the progressive evolution of history is in a large part a legacy of this axiom. In Marxism progressives are the heroes of the cause until they fall out of favour and are replaced with new progressives. The ends justify the means where as Marx insisted that anything that is against the Utopian state is lie and anything that supports the state cannot be a lie. The revolution was just a passing phase of bloodiness before we are able to share in the Worker’s Paradise and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
In the name of the Greater Good terrorist strike and kill innocents.
It was Shakespeare that wrote perhaps the best condemnation of the Ends Justifying the Means axiom. “Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;” from Hamlet. We look at an ambition where people stand in the way and wonder what must be done to remove those pesky people. To kill another human requires some way of overcoming the resistance to do so. It is not natural thing to murder someone haplessly and without provocation. To kill another for mere profit is to put profit above the value of human life. People wrestle with conscience as did Shakespeare’s Richard 111 when he uttered "O coward conscience, how dost thou afflict me!" Conscience is seen as the coward that slows the hand to murder and stops people from the freedom of being ruthless.
A truly ruthless and unconscionable person is an oddity that stands out like a warning to others. "Please avoid this person and any others like them." Yet history, which we seems to always fail to learn from itself, manages to repeat itself and present the next monster for us to escape. Perhaps courage does not so much exist in being free of all conscience after all? What need do have we in being remembered in the pages of history written with a quill dipped in the blood that we have spilt? I am very comfortable with being held in contempt by all the great Napoleon's of the world.
| 98 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S. L. Bradish
People can be very strange, indeed...
Comment by Louie
Climate Forum
Climate Red
randomthoughts
Phil's Wellness Tips
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
The ancient Greeks focused upon the legends as being justification of a life well spent.
As for me I just pass my genetic material on to another generation.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
If you don't get caught then be bold, be brave, be bloody Macbeth because no man born of woman shall harm thee.
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
I suppose you have just laid out all the reasons why I have always striven to be a monster.....
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for your comments.
Monsters rule ok. It is a 2 plus 2 equalling 5 thing I have.
I am tempted to do Diogenes meets Alexander the Great next. Holding off for a better time.
AND
This was an old BB version from the 1950's
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
I was referring to the book. By the way.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
If you look closely this BB looks like James Mason.
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
No I wouldn;t commit the crime.
I would be better to follow examples like Paul Newman and give my 21 million dollars to charity... from the dust to the dust we all return...
What a great guy!
Lilla ...
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Thanks for you comments.
Also you win a prize for being the first to answer the question.
I never knew that about Paul Newman.
Good actor of the old style. (Where you needed to know how to act. Not just look good.)
Good luck
Damo
Comment by tlcorbin
Coffee Quip
A Global Citizen
Paranormal Paranormal
Is Why
Alaska Chronicle
Raven
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Killing for profit?
That is the most common kind of ruthlessness.
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
First question, murder who?
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
In Crime and Punishment he murdered usurer that was exploiting people.
The point of the murder was to separate himself from the rest of humanity by his willingness to follow through an ambition ruthlessly to its conclusion.
You can hypothetically choose anyone you like for any reason you like. (except me)
Comment by Kleonaptra
Kalikapsychosis
Yes
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Just don't sleep walk afterwards saying, "Out, out, damn spot."