The “common perception” (the ideals held by a society’s majority) is not always accurate and is sometimes capable of contradicting itself.
Examples of how the common perception can be unreliable:
-
The notorious “the Earth is flat” argument
-
A good majority of people recognize the moral concern of not inflicting suffering on animals, yet they eat meat on a regular basis without giving much thought to it. I do not wish to imply that it is right or wrong, and I am not suggesting vegetarianism (I myself am not a vegetarian), but I am merely giving an example of how the “common perception” can contradict itself.
-
The very fact that I had to make the point of my non-affiliations with vegetarianism (in the above paragraph) is evidence that the “common perception” is uncapable of viewing something for the sake of understanding, and is quick to “jump to conclusions” of accusing another person of being inferior. If I were to not stress my lack of affiliations with vegetarianism, people might begin to associate me with the “leftist veganism preachers” - which I do not wish to come across as.
For certain things, I sometimes ask myself “is understanding of this something that is innate in the human psyche? or does it need to come with experience?” . However, like above, it appears that the act of “gaining understanding of something merely for the sake of understanding, without implying that one person is right/wrong” is an ability that must come from experience, and perhaps the “innate tendency of the human psyche” is to “jump to conclusions of accusing others”.
It is without a doubt, I can say, that “learning something merely for the sake of understanding” is an ability that usually only comes to the well-educated, or to those who take it upon themselves (even if they aren’t well-educated) to strive for clarity. However, think of an infant - they are capable of “understanding merely for the sake of understanding”, and in the case of an infant who lacks sufficient social contact (or simply has limited social contact), that may be the only ability at their disposal. Then, it would seem that the “jumping to conclusions of accusing others” is something that needs to be learned from being around others. On the contrary, an infant with a more than adequate level of social contact, a level where “teasing” and “instigation of social conflicts” was commonly found, the infant may have developed to learn that he/she should simply rely on “jumping to conclusions of accusing others” and not develop the ability to “understand merely for the sake of understanding”.
It is interesting to note these two opposing elements:
- A perception revolving around socialization.
- A Perception revolving around clarity.
In larger groups, the tendency is that its members will have the first perception (revolving around socialization); their knowledge of things is gained from watching other people, and relying on the perception of the group instead of an independent perception. In this way, the actions are sort of governed by the Zeitgeist.
In smaller groups, the tendency is that its members will have the second perception (revolving around clarity). Their knowledge of things is usually gained from their own independent perception and their own formulated hypotheses. When other’s communicate to an individual, the individual assumes that the information they are being given is constructive, essential, and/or instructive.
The distinction between “larger groups and smaller groups” is not always so definite. Of course, with any psychological hypothesis, there are going to be variations and exceptions which deviate from what is proposed. I am merely trying to give examples to help further triangulate the reader’s understanding of the ideas I am proposing.
Perhaps the first perception (revolving around socialization) is something that emerges primarily in either:
A) The unintelligent, who lack the ability to understand for the sake of clarity, and are only willing to “push themselves into understanding” if the entire social group expects it.
B) Those who, from experience, recognize the expectations of larger/well-socialized groups - the expectations of holding a morally neutral ground that is shared by all members of the group. Although they may not agree with (the possibly more primitive) moral expectations of the group, they still seek to avoid conflicting with these expectations due to the difficulties it presents.
C) Those who’s lifes revolve primarily around socialization; the need for social hierarching (to determine who is the most “powerful”/influential in a social group) is a high priority in social groups. In such situations, the need for social hierarching reduces communication to “displaying power to determine the alpha position”, instead of “communicating for clarity of the ideas being communicated”. Why is this? The female sex drive prefers the most powerful male, but shouldn’t the most powerful male be the one who demonstrates the most clarity? It would seem so, but perhaps the female sex drive recognizes a different way for interpretting power: it is not the clarity of what is being said that is sought after, but instead it is the level of confidence of the person saying it that is sought after. Also, we could hypthesize that “alpha-males” are reluctant to give up their position, and when another individual seems to be more intellectual than them, they realize that they are unable to assert their superiority through out-intellectualizing them, so they rely on social cues of displaying confidence to defend their position. Perhaps this is why it is cliche for intellectuals to be ostricized, forming the stereotype of “geek” or “nerd”.
The second perception is something that emerges primarily for:
A) People who have to deal with “survival” as the highest priority, and developing “moral standards” is not a significant enough priority. Clarity also may be required for communication that is essential to survival.
B) Ironically, people who do not have to deal with survival as a high priority, and these people also lack adequate social contact. They find that “determining who is the most powerful” is something that is unnecessary (since survival isn’t an issue), and arguably, social hierarching (determining who is the most powerful) is the main purpose of the first perception. Although this may suggest that societies where survival isn’t a problem (such as our society) should not require the first perception, it is perhaps evolution integrating it into our psyche the necessity for social hierarching to still take place - since just because survival is temporarily not a concern, it does not imply that it would never be a concern; it is still also a priority for the female sex drive to choose the most powerful males (albeit, survival not being a concern) and produce the most powerful offspring - this too could require social hierarching to take place.
C) Those who lack adequate social contact. They might be unfamiliar with the process of “social hierarching” (asserting oneself as being “most powerful” to maintain the alpha position), and therefore they aren’t aware of any other reason for socialization other than for clearly communicating information.
Nietzsche describes his concept of a “Free Spirit” in Human, All Too Human, as an individual who is intelligent, an indepent thinker, an efficient evaluator of morality that is able to achieve moral clarity, and “enlightened”. Nietzsche hints towards the idea that the criteria for becoming a “Free Spirit” is dependent on the devlopment of the individual during childhood. The individual probably follows a pattern something like:
I. Starts out in a blank state; “pure innocence” that has not yet been exposed to the moral prejudices in reality. Debatedly, all humans start out in this “blank state” at birth.
II. As an infant, they establish healthy connections with the concepts of “love”.
III. As a child, they are introduced by either their parents or a mentor to the virtue of selflessness, and make connection in their mind that objectivism is the solution for most moral dilemmas - although they aren’t able to put it into words like I am, or much less know what “objectivism” even is, they are still familiar with the concept of it. As a result, they develop a personal moral system that is more or less a Laissez-faire morality.
IV. As with moral objectivism, they also begin to make connections in their mind that extend objectivism to knowledge and logic as well; they come to the realization that knowledge is something which exists independent of subjective perceptions.
V. At some point in infancy, they have an adequate amount of social contact. During which, they become aware of the practice of social hierarching, and at first they do not understand it.
VI. As they reach more and more understanding of the mechanics and purpose of social hierarching, they come to terms with it. But, they also identify that “true social power” (although they may not have initially liked the idea of it) would come from clarity and objectivism. They then view anyone who obtains social power through denial, deception, and manipulation to be a social adversary. They recognize that such people have not acquired their sense of power appropriately, and their social position is actually a charade. They then recognize that knowledge, clarity, and objectivity (being absent in such adversaries) can expose these adversaries as being fake.
VII. They develop their sense of social power by defending themselves against individuals who wish to instigate social conflicts. They express this power to others by coming across as a “quiet, angry person, who reserves his/her power for defense”. They also might be a bit more proactive in their displayal of power, by actively seeking out and up-rooting those who merely mimic power whilst actually having none
VIII. Once the individual has done all of this successfully, and maintains an innocent persona, the individual will then be able to display a level of confidence in doing all of this that leaves them free from the constraints imposed on him/her by those who merely mimic power. The individual is then enlightened; they are humble, innocent, yet powerful, and able to lead a meaningful existence.
Nietzsche notes that these “free spirits” are capable of occuring in any society, that "any society is capable of having such ‘lucky strokes’ ", but a higher occurence of them is an indication that the state of humanity is approaching the “Ubermensch”.
Yet, since the criteria of becoming a “Free Spirit” require exposure to “wrongness” and moral deficiencies, how could a society eventually become entirely composed of “free spirits”? One explanation is that huamnity will never completely reach such a state, but humanity will simply continue to refine itself towards this unreachable state.
