Well that is excellent Neocon. You see, I thought you may have misinterpreted my insistence on the need for a force that normalises our perceptions and behaviour, as a rejection of natural law. I merely seek a comprehensive, closed system and think Natural Law without such a force is yet open and ultimately meaningless. Illogic, logic, unreason, reason, lawlessness, lawfulness, pain, comfort, suffering, ecstasy, longing, satisfaction, life and death are equally valid states until an overarching authority deems one preferable over another.
You are quite correct that one need not believe in God or any such thing to effectively refer to nature's law, though I think without God, our having nature's law is analogous to our having a Constitution without courts and policemen. Without these we would perhaps yet stumble onward (due to a natural consensus toward existence) with something of a set of normalised beliefs and behaviours, but we almost certainly would lose the ability to think ourselves participants in what we now know to be our great "Western Civilisation." And whatever it is that would become our new state of being would be just as valid as the former state (unless some valid authority deemed otherwise).
***
In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul speaks of how Gentiles were not given the Law of God (as were the Jews), but how they are yet a law unto themselves since in their hearts they still possess what we call "nature's law." So yes, St. Paul understands the existence of natural law. But he also knows this law is predicated upon God's Law. Indeed he understands nature's law to be a mere subset of God's Law, and knows it ultimately depends upon His unqualified sovereignty. His point in mentioning natural law is merely to show how ultimately there is no partiality with God between Jew and Gentile when it comes to the basis by which men are judged. Wherever mankind exists (whether in Israel or elsewhere), it is under Law, and since it is under Law it is utterly condemned to Hell by law. This is why he claims that 'by obedience to the law (whether the law of Moses or the Gentile law of the heart that dictates right and wrong), no flesh will be justified in God's sight, because the Law was not given to justify, but rather to convict of sin.'
***
As for Nietzsche, I of course am neither admirer nor champion, though I once found him fascinating and have read quite a few of his works. He had a boorish tendency to lash at his perceived enemies, but I think on the whole he sought emotional and intellectual parity via philosophy, and aimed to define an ultimate, though not systematic or universal, human state of being based on his idea of "life." We see this especially in his work "Vom Nutzen und Nachteil der Historie fr das Leben." So yes, he did refer to Natural Law, I might add somewhat blatantly.
The thing that perhaps most impresses me about him is how he maintained passion and consistency even amidst his tragic and wretched life. Except for his odd description of how he came across the writing of "Zarathustra," there was no supernaturalism or mushiness in the man. Correspondingly, he had possession of no God or any other transcendent beauty, and that is a great pity-- as he no doubt by now has discovered. |
