I was pleased with the argument that Brian Dalton '97 was advancing in his column "Behold the Man, and Bewar(y)" [Oct. 31] as a rebuttal against Abiola Lapite's column "Ecce Homo" [Oct. 28], until I read the last couple of paragraphs. What disappointed me was that by readily accepting the pursuit of happiness as an ideal way of life, Dalton was leaving his life "unexamined," contradicting his own statement that "happiness should not exist at the expense of knowledge."
The reason that I was at first sympathetic to Dalton is that I also feel strongly that the ability to create and maintain a family united by love, for example, is a form of greatness that Lapite does not seem to recognize. Particularly in this day and age when social conditions -- such as the prevalence of drugs and the absence of parents at home due to their work -- are conducive to family disintegration, I can only respect those who are capable of warding off the effects of those conditions, while passing on firm values to their children for the future prosperity of humanity.
Unfortunately Dalton, touched by the warmth emanated by such "personal greatness," then settles for the conclusion that the real objective in life is "to be happy with life." This viewpoint is highly problematic because he does not bother to question what is meant by "happiness." Without such questioning one easily misses the grave moral implication of any definition of "happiness" he or she might choose.
For instance, if you are Christian, then the teachings of your religious doctrine, from which you derive happiness, also happen to condemn me to hell, as I am an agnostic who has never been to a Christian church. It disturbs me that I might end up in hell because I pursued what I believed was "happiness." Dalton fails to realize that many abstract sources from which people generate their happiness are exclusive, and that the ones who do not comply to them are penalized.
I believe that Lapite is basically correct in advocating the "pursuit and recognition of excellence, in all aspects of life." The only problem is that what he deems as excellence does not include the achievements that are not as recognizable as those of Newton or Nietzsche. The reason why I endorse Lapite's proposition is that the pursuit of excellence normally entails profound examination of life -- the process that Dalton skips to arrive at his inane conclusion regarding life.
Consider, for example, the philosophical reasoning by which Nietzsche derives his principle that the most noble purpose in this world is to introduce a new moral foundation upon which society rests. In our world, where no individual can ascertain the absolute metaphysical perspective because one is always trapped in the context of one's time and place, the role of the great individual is to become the master of morality. To Nietzsche all of us are defined not in terms of our "being," but in terms of our "doing;" action is what defines us. Thus if one were to seek intrinsic meaning in one's life, then he or she must become a creator in a true sense.
The means to create morality must be compatible with human nature, which is cruel, according to Nietzsche. In fact, he claims that cruelty gave birth to Christianity. Prior to this religion's origin, the strong, driven by their cruelty, ruled the weak. The weak, who could not exert their cruelty outward, could only internalize this powerful innate passion. The result was the birth of the fictional entity within each one of us called the soul, toward which we would direct our cruelty in the form of self-inflicted suffering. The clever members of the weak, who later became Christian priests, then introduced meaning to this suffering by indoctrinating the weak into the belief that such suffering was caused by so-called original sin. Thus suffering is a manifestation of the feeble "slave morality," which serves no intrinsic purpose. The great individuals must overcome this deception in order to deepen human consciousness.
One can only marvel at the depth of Nietzsche's intellectual effort to emancipate humanity from perpetual suffering. His ideas resonated so well with the alienated people of his time that they united the Germans to eliminate the Jews. So I ask the readers, "What does 'happiness' mean?"
Perhaps, I am deluding myself by thinking that the implication of such philosophy, as well as those of many other great thinkers, is universally astounding, for many of my fellow students take philosophy classes, but cease to think about philosophy beyond their classes. Although I agree that Lapite's depiction of the Dartmouth student body is harsh, there is, unfortunately, quite a bit of truth to the essence of his message.
