If guilt is, as Nietzsche seems to suggest, an invention of the priests of Israel, then nothing prior to the priesthood should bear much resemblance to guilt. But if there's something like it in subhuman animals, then N's claim seems just plain fanciful. And if it has an analogue in the animal kingdom that a materialist would naturally imagine serves as the foundation for human guilt feelings, well, then N's commitment to naturalism is at odds with his genealogy of morals.
How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
Comments