penultimate: the many or the few?

There has been this nagging question for many years, which is better {or rather which is right} to sacrifice one’s self & aspirations for those around you or to sacrifice it all for some great accomplishment. Translated, is it better to be the family man or hero (be it politically/militarily, defeating fascism; or scientifically, curing cancer; or even artistically, painting the next mona lisa).

In Bertrand Russell’s A History of Western Philosophy, while examining Nietzsche he explores the contrast of Nietzsche’s superman centered state to that of the liberal democracy. Nietzsche holds that man is not equal, there are a select who are better and should be given a freedom to exercise their greatness, even at the expense of the majority. We shouldn’t care for the life or death of the ‘weak’ class, they are only meant as support for the exploits of the ruling supermen. This is because it is only on the backs of the great leader that history moves forward. He feels that it is only by the efforts of Napoleon that the 19th century is shaped, never mind the wake of destruction he felt in his wake.

The liberal sees all men created equal and should be treated as such. His efforts are for moving society towards equality, freedom being giving not only to an elect but to all. The central goal is not the exploits of a great leader but rather the happiness of all. Liberals want everyone to be happy; Nietzsche doesn’t shy away from struggle and anguish if it is in the name of greatness. Nietzsche sees liberality as creating equality through a lowest common denominator. Nietzsche wants to create a system that allows the freedom for the greatest to be great, even if it is as a result of injustice towards the masses.

The question between these two systems seems to come up on the personal level also. It seems that even in a democratic society for one man to excel greatly it is done on the labour and exploitation of another. What business has risen to significant power without questionable if not out right unethical practices? It seems to be great means robbing from another.

Although there is the complication that it is through these great riches that we have some many of the great edifices of culture. The great pyramids of Egypt or the wonderful cathedrals of Europe couldn’t have been made without the exploitive measures of the powerful from the weak. As Christians we look negatively upon Pharaoh for enslaving the Israelites, but it was through exactly that kind of slavery that the pyramids were built. As Protestants we chide the Catholics for selling indulgences, but it was through that commerces that the Church became rich enough to commission its great works.

The same can be said of Rockefeller a century ago or the Gates of today. Is it better to amass such wealth and power so as to do such large scale constructs?

But what kind of person does it take to be a Rockefeller or a Napoleon? I take it that while you might want these men as acquaintances owing a favor to you, they wouldn’t make good friends. What great man of history is also a great husband or father? It seems that to have success in the area of one’s profession a grave sacrifice has to be made of those who are closest to you, one’s family & friends. Not to mention the certain paranoia that usually accompanies men of power, where when they can they off any other contenders of greatness.

On one level we can say it is a choice, one is not better than the other. One can have professional success or have a rich contented personal life; though many try to have both it seems in the end one has to make a choice. On another level it seems we must make a value judgment, one choice must be right while the other wrong.

This causes me to think about the Kingdom of God, how Jesus showed another way than the way of the world.

I have swung back and forth between the two. When explicitly spelled out, in terms of Christian morality/ethics, it seems that the family man is the right course of action. When you look at the ‘great’ men throughout history they are usually horrible people on the personal level, only through their exploits are they appreciated. Looking at the Christ’s example we can see that he implicitly states that ends don’t justify means. The for the Israelites was a establishment of the Davidic throne. It had been promised, and Jesus came pronouncing the Kingdom of God. Justifiably the people were expecting a revolution, violent and brutal it must be. Jesus through his acts of servanthood (i.e., washing the feet of the disciples) and ultimately laying down his life for the other he shows that the process is just as important as the result.

But was also Jesus who left it all after thirty years of life and lived nomadic for 3 years before being killed. He is the person who said that following him meant leaving one’s family, living everything. So his life while not one of the despotic ruler is still not the banale life of the ‘burbs.

It seems I’ve so often falsely composed this as a dichotomy between the content family man (read boring suburbia life) and the mow everyone else down Nietzschian superman. There is a third way, the way of Jesus which is just a radical but also just as extolling of people & the events of life.