An opinion is not a fact, and the truth is not an opinion
There are no facts, only interpretations.

-- Nietzsche

I disagree with Nietzsche, because I think there are facts. But if I agreed with Nietzsche, that would not make me a "Cultural Marxist."

And I hope that even Nietzsche would agree that a lot of people have a hard time distinguishing facts from opinions.

Facts (such as whether it is raining outside right now) are by definition truth. (I don't see how it is possible to have intelligent discussions about what is true unless we agree that truth -- at minimum -- consists of knowable facts.) Opinions sometimes involve questions of fact, but often they involve larger issues over which people disagree. An opinion does not become "the truth" simply because a large number of people share it.

The discussion in the comments below -- over objective and subjective truths -- brings this to mind, as facts are almost always objective truths, while opinions tend to be subjective.

I think the confusion of fact with opinion is what causes much of the trouble in cultural debates. People who believe very strongly in certain opinions tend to regard these opinions as facts, as truths, and are unable to admit that they are actually opinions. There's a certain gray area we call "belief" but I'm of the opinion (and therefore believe) that beliefs are opinions. Widely shared and strongly held opinions, but opinions nonetheless. And no matter how strongly held a belief, the fact that it is strongly held does not make it true.

Opinions and beliefs can of course be true. Most of what we call disagreements over truth consist of disagreements not over facts, but over whether certain beliefs are true. This is compounded by the fact that some beliefs are based on perceptions (feelings, if you will), which seem very true to an individual, but which are not provable to others. For example, if someone believes that he has felt the presence of God, that is true for him, but it cannot be called an objective truth -- even though it might be true.

If enough people agree that certain opinions and beliefs are true, and they become shared cultural beliefs, while that agreement does not tranform subjective truths into objective truths, it forms the basis of what can be called objective morality. This can be further divided into religious truths such as "keep holy the Sabbath" (said to emanate from God) and ethical truths such as "do no murder" (not dependent on God).

But not all morality is dependent on God -- either for belief or for enforcement. Much of what we call "morality" consists of these systems of ethical truths agreed upon over the millenia, and even most atheists would agree that it is wrong to lie, steal, murder, rape, etc. Such social agreements have long formed the basis of Western culture (both from Judeo-Christian and Greco-Roman perspectives), and as they are also formalized into law, it matters very little whether an individual agrees with the philosophical underpinnings, which are derived from religion, philosophy, self interest, and common sense. One does not need to be a Christian to agree with Jesus's central ethical premise of "Love your neighbor as yourself."

I realize that I have not begun to articulate a comprehensive system of epistemology, and I'm sure people will disagree with some or all of what I have said. But I don't think that makes me a "Cultural Marxist."

UPDATE (03/02/06): I agree with Jeff Goldstein on what I think is an important point:

...it matters not whether you believe classical liberalism to be the manifestation of some metaphysical truth or simply the best possible manifestation of human social contracts.
Unfortunately, this often causes needless debate over the role of God:
... they have but simply to adopt as part of their own philosophical position regarding social contracts the primacy of certain individual rights that are beyond the bounds of any government to remove.
As to why I call this an important point, I should probably admit my bias here. While I believe in God, the religious debate can get very acrimonious. (In the past, it has caused me more than a little grief.)

posted by Eric on 02.23.06 at 04:46 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3346






Comments

I'm a long-time fan of Nietzsche (the original Nietzsche) and I think I can shed some light on this...

First of all, the quote you gave has been published in the Will to Power (WtP), a selection of his notes and private notebooks made by his nazi-friendly sister and a local minister (you can imagine how well they understood what they were selecting... the mostly went for shock value)

Imagine if you would, one day, doodle and play with an idea in a private notebook and then you'd get painted as the ultimate relativist...

Nietzsche--in his published works--takes an epistemological stance somewhat different from the extreme simplification of that quote.

There are many things he would regard as certain... such as the fact that socialists and egalitarians are total idiots. There are several juicy quotes to that effect one can use on the local Sartrian or Foucaultist who won't shut up.

I won't try to reconstruct Nietzsche's views on epistemology, ontology, culture and value. I don't have the time, the space and the clarity of thought.

I think it suffice to say that he's taken as the poster-boy by a lot of Marxists because of a bunch of misrepresentations, misguided secondary literature and historical accidents.

Maybe, some day, someone will reevaluate Nietzsche more to his tastes ;-) and challenge the Kaufmanian orthodoxy that has come to dominate the English-speaking world.

(N. was critical of liberals, in the Mill tradition for example, but his critique of socialism, egalitarianism and the likes is far more acid)

Gabriel Mihalache   ·  February 24, 2006 07:26 AM

I guess it depends on what one calls "objective". This is where you and I probably ran into confusion on the previous thread.

What I was referring to as "objective" means objective outside of human constructs. The objective noise of a tree falling in the woods even if no one is there to hear it.

But when you say "If enough people agree that certain opinions and beliefs are true, and they become shared cultural beliefs, while that agreement does not tranform subjective truths into objective truths, it forms the basis of what can be called objective morality", I see that your use of "objective" with "objective morality" differs from your use of "objective" with "objective truths". Your "objective morality" depends on "enough" people sharing a belief, while your "objective truths" do not. In connection with "objective morality", "objective" in that context seems to mean outside of a particular individual, but not outside of human constructs. Such objective morality (my quote mark key is tired) would appear to permit denying civil rights on the basis of race and other evils that could (IMO) be properly regarded as objectively evil.

And I'd probably quibble with your statement that "not all morality is dependent on God". I agree with you that belief in God is not necessary for one to perceive and agree with moral tenets, and perhaps for one to follow those moral tenets (tho I'd pose that the motivation to so follow would be weak at best). But the question remains: from where does that morality originate? If from our innate human nature, then from where did that derive?

pikkumatti   ·  February 24, 2006 08:14 AM

Thanks Eric,

I was trying to write something similar yesterday, but got caught up in too many specifics, and it got very, very long.

Where did morality come from? There's an intereasting read from Robert Wright called "The moral animal" which attempts to answer this question from an evolutionary point of view. Now, everything in the book is speculative, but he searches for answers in animal behavior/similarities between human cultures/ modern human psychological studies.

He starts with human/animal sexuality and grows from there. By the time he gets to morality, his evidence is preety stretched, but still a fascinating idea.

alchemist   ·  February 24, 2006 04:57 PM


December 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits