Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Daoist Thought: Crossing Paths In-Between

4. Hierarchy and Equality

159 Chapter 4 Hierarchy and Equality By linking the philosophy of Heidegger and Nietzsche with Daoism, I lean towards highlighting those aspects of their thoughts that celebrate interconnection, diversity, and openness. Undoubtedly, for many, this account will appear skewed, in light of the darker political side that is an integral part of both Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s legacies. Both have been connected with the Nazi regime, albeit for different reasons. While the allegations that Nietzsche was a proto-Nazi are blatantly unfair (given his utter contempt for both militarism and German nationalism), his preference for aristocratic politics, replete with notions of rank ordering and a glorification of violence, certainly fly in the face of the democratic principles many of us hold in high esteem. Heidegger’s political history is more tainted than that of Nietzsche, because he lent his explicit support to the Nazi regime, which he erroneously believed provided a political vehicle for renewing modern humanity’s connection to Being. Undoubtedly this readily leads to the conclusion that both Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s distrust for absolute moral principles and truths eventuates in a kind of politics where the unrestrained show of force is not only permitted but exalted, thereby revealing the danger inherent in a philosophy that refuses to espouse clear moral precepts. However, here the comparison with Daoist thinking is instructive. Daoism, while not appealing to absolute or metaphysical principles, abhors political violence and coercion. Therefore, no automatic link can be made between a nonmetaphysical posture and political authoritarianism. Laozi envisions rule by a sage, but this rule is so subtle that it is almost unnoticed, and its intention is to help cultivate the particularities of the ten-thousand things, rather than brutally squash them. 160 Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Daoist Thought While this is easily associated with a kind of clever Machiavellianism, such an interpretation presupposes that the ultimate objective of the sage ruler is the perpetuation of his own power. However, the purpose of the sage ruler is to create a dynamic whereby his rule would become unnecessary. Through the power of his example, he would foster a spontaneous cooperation between things that would eventuate in self-rule. The sage ruler is to become the conduit for anarchic balance and harmony between individuals. The stark differences between the political attitudes of Nietzsche and Heidegger and the Daoist thinkers suggest that something besides an anti-metaphysical posture explains the political leanings of the two German philosophers. Furthermore, one must not ignore antiauthoritarian streaks that surface in Nietzsche, and become more pronounced in the later Heidegger as well. Heidegger’s later writings seem to represent a reversal of the politics he espoused in the early 1930s, while Zarathustra can also be said to offer a democratic vision of social relationships. This suggests that the political positions of both Heidegger and Nietzsche are ambiguous and do not necessarily see their embodiment in the brutal Nazi politics of the 1930s. I would argue that the authoritarian dimension of both Heidegger and Nietzsche is largely the result of their contempt for the dynamics of the herd. They both praise the individual who actively transforms himself and thereby stands out from the crowd. Because such self-transformation involves coming to terms with some of the most anxiety-producing aspects of our existence, both thinkers assume this is an activity only the very few would dare engage in. Furthermore, Heidegger and Nietzsche concur that nothingness, as a force of negation, is what spurs on the selftransforming activity of these exceptional individuals. The best political regime, from this perspective, is one which facilitates the flourishing of the few. Furthermore, hierarchical regimes do not shy away from conflict, allowing the brave self to emerge out of a process of struggle. Heidegger assumed that the destructive tactics of the Nazis were the mark of a regime willing to constantly recreate itself through total mobilization. Both Nietzsche and Heidegger seem oblivious to the fact that destruction often sets off pernicious spirals of violence rather than laying the groundwork for creative activity. Nietzsche and Rank Ordering As I have suggested in previous chapters, Nietzsche offers a very complex portrait of the self which challenges the notions of subjectivity upon Hierarchy and Equality 161 which much of Western thought has been predicated. Yet, he is often accused of being a radical individualist preoccupied with how the self can maximize its power in relation to...