So far we have been talking about the consequences of the concept of “natural law,” as long as it is equated with God’s Law, or Ideal Law. The ambiguity of this term, however, reveals itself instantaneously, when this simple and sound equation is pushed back into the shadows, and the key word nature obtains the spotlight.
The most obvious way to demonstrate this ambiguity is by substituting the tidy formal term “natural law” with its virtual synonym “law of nature.” Earlier, I was purposely using these two variants interchangeably so that now I could be pointing out their nuanced dissimilarity. “Nature” as a noun in the second variant is somewhat more prominent than as an adjective in the first, and on hearing the words “law of nature” we are prompted to ask right away, whose nature exactly: "nature’s" nature, God’s nature, or man’s nature?! Only God’s Nature, of the three, is incontrovertibly ideal, even for those who do not believe in God's existence. In the case of man’s nature, most of us, post-Socratics, will consider it evil at worst, and corrupted at best. No ideal here. And as for “nature’s” nature, the very fact that we thus separate it from God’s nature, moves us into the "Darwinian" territory, and the law of that kind of nature, the survival of the fittest, puts the highest premium of all on physical health, muscle, and cunning,--- not exactly the qualities on which genius thrives.
Not surprisingly, Nietzsche jumps onto this ambiguity:
“‘According to nature’ you want to live? Oh you, noble Stoics, what deceptive words these are! Imagine a being, like nature, wasteful, indifferent beyond measure, without purpose and consideration, without mercy and justice, fertile, desolate, uncertain at the same time; imagine indifference itself as a power, how could you live according to this indifference?” Jenseits (9).
The bottom line of the point I am making here is that there can be no conception of natural law without an ambiguity, unless it contains within itself the absolute, and the ideal, which cannot be effectively separated from the concept of God. It is therefore equally inconceivable to develop an idealistic concept of international justice without an appeal to absolute morality, in other words, to God’s Law.
Now, what was so wrong with the Stoics? Was it their vanity or their hypocrisy, which ticked Nietzsche off? Or maybe he was offended by the false identification of some of their mediocrities who, throughout the ages have wanted to dress up in the greatness of their general idea? Otherwise, they would not be guilty of misrepresentation. They are, indeed, living “according to nature.” Because nature is not one giant anthill, or a beehive. She has given birth to creatures of both kinds: creators and conformists, men of fiction and men of… well, “facts of life.” These two kinds are in direct opposition to each other, yet both live according to nature, the mother of the great multiplicities of natures, their own nature given them, to each his own, by their common mother nature.
And, finally, isn’t this contradiction properly noted in philosophy by a parallel contradiction, when Hobbes, for instance, uses the word “nature” in two different and incompatible contexts: the man living in a state of nature which is lawlessness and war of every man against every man; and then the great artificial animal his Leviathan, which is created by man, like nature (man included), was created by her Creator, and cheerfully introducing the laws of God and nature to govern the Commonwealth, protecting it from the different kind of nature?
All of this, eventually, boils down to the virtual truism that if living according to nature means according to one’s own unique nature, “suum quique,” then the whole discussion of the “law of nature” also becomes truistic and meaningless. Apparently it is awfully easy to be carried away by the winds of such free-flowing discussion, and step into a quagmire of sheer demagoguery, where our words could mean just about anything, depending on how we spin them... But we do not want to do that.
The most obvious way to demonstrate this ambiguity is by substituting the tidy formal term “natural law” with its virtual synonym “law of nature.” Earlier, I was purposely using these two variants interchangeably so that now I could be pointing out their nuanced dissimilarity. “Nature” as a noun in the second variant is somewhat more prominent than as an adjective in the first, and on hearing the words “law of nature” we are prompted to ask right away, whose nature exactly: "nature’s" nature, God’s nature, or man’s nature?! Only God’s Nature, of the three, is incontrovertibly ideal, even for those who do not believe in God's existence. In the case of man’s nature, most of us, post-Socratics, will consider it evil at worst, and corrupted at best. No ideal here. And as for “nature’s” nature, the very fact that we thus separate it from God’s nature, moves us into the "Darwinian" territory, and the law of that kind of nature, the survival of the fittest, puts the highest premium of all on physical health, muscle, and cunning,--- not exactly the qualities on which genius thrives.
Not surprisingly, Nietzsche jumps onto this ambiguity:
“‘According to nature’ you want to live? Oh you, noble Stoics, what deceptive words these are! Imagine a being, like nature, wasteful, indifferent beyond measure, without purpose and consideration, without mercy and justice, fertile, desolate, uncertain at the same time; imagine indifference itself as a power, how could you live according to this indifference?” Jenseits (9).
The bottom line of the point I am making here is that there can be no conception of natural law without an ambiguity, unless it contains within itself the absolute, and the ideal, which cannot be effectively separated from the concept of God. It is therefore equally inconceivable to develop an idealistic concept of international justice without an appeal to absolute morality, in other words, to God’s Law.
Now, what was so wrong with the Stoics? Was it their vanity or their hypocrisy, which ticked Nietzsche off? Or maybe he was offended by the false identification of some of their mediocrities who, throughout the ages have wanted to dress up in the greatness of their general idea? Otherwise, they would not be guilty of misrepresentation. They are, indeed, living “according to nature.” Because nature is not one giant anthill, or a beehive. She has given birth to creatures of both kinds: creators and conformists, men of fiction and men of… well, “facts of life.” These two kinds are in direct opposition to each other, yet both live according to nature, the mother of the great multiplicities of natures, their own nature given them, to each his own, by their common mother nature.
And, finally, isn’t this contradiction properly noted in philosophy by a parallel contradiction, when Hobbes, for instance, uses the word “nature” in two different and incompatible contexts: the man living in a state of nature which is lawlessness and war of every man against every man; and then the great artificial animal his Leviathan, which is created by man, like nature (man included), was created by her Creator, and cheerfully introducing the laws of God and nature to govern the Commonwealth, protecting it from the different kind of nature?
All of this, eventually, boils down to the virtual truism that if living according to nature means according to one’s own unique nature, “suum quique,” then the whole discussion of the “law of nature” also becomes truistic and meaningless. Apparently it is awfully easy to be carried away by the winds of such free-flowing discussion, and step into a quagmire of sheer demagoguery, where our words could mean just about anything, depending on how we spin them... But we do not want to do that.
No comments:
Post a Comment