Now that I have established that I was not deducing, but generalizing, I will attempt a summary, at least:
As I have described earlier, the various philosophical schools of ancient Greece sought to determine the end of man, and often disagreed. However, there were some things in common. For example, the Stoics, when they recommended living in "accord with Nature", meant to align oneself with the Logos, which was immanent in Nature, and cultivate indifference to fortune and adherence to duty. Thus, one rises above the passions, and aquits oneself as a well as a member of the human community---- in fact, the Stoics coined the word "cosmopolite", citizen of the world. In that, they resembled Hinayana Buddhism, karma yoga, and Taoism, although Taoism more resembles a sort of extreme version of Stoic doctrine, Cynicism, which was more hostile to luxury and embellishment, and deliberately cultivated a certain plainness and even rudeness.
The Epicureans reasoned that the goal of life is the avoidance of pain, and therefore the pursuit of moderate pleasure, to avoid the pangs of desire. However, they considered the best life one of scholarship, the pursuit of intellectual pleasures and only moderate sensual indulgence, an existence that was orderly and fitting for a refined sensibility, and thus, one that was distinctly human.
Plato and Aristotle considered the intellect to be the highest faculty of man, and that the passions should be subordinated to it, and ordered by it. They considered philosophy the highest pursuit, and a well- ordered polity one that supported it, and was ruled by it.
In Hinduism, the goal is to rise above the snare of the sensual universe. Through karmic advancement, which means the performance of duty, and sometimes through shortcuts like asceticism or bhakti (renunciatory devotion), one is reborn into ever higher castes, further removed from menial labor or a preoccupation with the mundane, and finally liberated to join one's atman with Brahm, and transcend the sensual world once and for all.
In Mahayana Buddhism, there is a similar concern with overcoming sansara, the world of sensual illusion, and realizing one's "Buddha- nature", eventually to achieve Nirvana. Popular piety has added the notion of the Boddhisattvas, beings who forgo ultimate enlightenment in order to help mere mortals, and therefore provides for the possibility of favorable rebirth through devotion and grace.
In Judaism, man is given dominion over the world, and considered to be a "little lower than the angels", and in the "image of God". The sabbath day is set aside, not merely for honoring God, but as a day of rest for oneself and one's servants. One is enjoined to care for the weakest members of the community, which becomes a perennial test of fidelity to the word of God. One is enjoined to treat the stranger with hospitality. Many rules of cleanliness and purity are advanced. Human sacrifice is adamantly considered an abomination, and animal sacrifice is substituted. Man is capable of entering into covenants with the Supreme Being.
Nietzsche considered "slave morality" to be inferior precisely because it was more utilitarian, and represented the petty concerns of man, and enshrined his weakness. "Master morality" emanated from the health, vigor, and self-esteem of the patrician, and enshrined the principle of noblesse oblige, a sense of chivalry and magnanimity. It valued admiration, great feats, stunning achievement, elegant refinement, and ambitious creation. Nobility was the aspiring part of man.
In other places, like the Eddas, some of the qualities of "master morality" may be seen: a determination not stand bravely, generosity as an expression of overflowing strength, abashedness at certain undignified weaknesses, like over- drunkenness, the urge to enshrine great deeds in story or song.
This is already a pretty lengthy summary, so I will not comment on everything, but these are among the observations that I relied on in attempting to formulate the nature of morality, as it is commonly expressed........ |
