A phenomenon I have seen going around the internet is so-called post-Christian vitalism [1]. PCR is based on Nietzschian moral philosophy, specifically the ‘master-mentality’ towards ethics. I believe this view is incredibly misguided, and will argue so from a Neoplatonist [2] perspective.
Let us begin by exploring Nietzsche’s master-morality and the specific interpretations of the post-christian vitalists. Nietzsche distinguishes between two types of morality, master-morality and slave-morality. Master morality – he asserts – is the classical form of morality, where virtuous and noble were interchangeable terms. Masters are courageous and follow their own agenda, like Odysseus. Slave-morality instead celebrates weakness by promoting ‘virtues’ such as humility and charity. Slave morality originated from... well slaves, and non-nobles generally to give themselves some access to the morality which the nobility had. Indeed, slave-moralists assert that their form of morality is the only one, and that the masters such as Odysseus are not virtuous at all.
Post-christian vitalises then claim [3] to embrace Nietzsche’s master morality, becoming Nietzsche an super-humans and driving froth progress in humanity. They asserts that all current-day slave moralists are simply still under the thumb of Christian propaganda, something which they have rid themselves of (hence the post-christian part of the name).
Now, I think that this approach is fundamentally misguided and indeed that it does not stand up to historical scrutiny. I might write about this some day, but today, I instead want to asses the PCV position from a Neoplatonic perspective. The reason this is of interest to me is because Plotinus and Porphyry assert that the sage indeed has no care for others. Neither does the One for that fact [5].
This certainly seems to lend credence to the post-christian vitalist, though, upon closer inspection, we will see that this is not the case. Neoplatonic ethics – much like nearly all ancient ethics – is built upon virtues. The four prime virtues are Courage, Wisdom, Prudence, and Justice. For a person starting out on their ethical journey, these virtues exist in the ordinary (civic) sense. As one processes however, these virtues take on a different character and become the intellectual (cathartic) virtues.
At the cathartic level, it is wise to “refrain from opining with the body’’, observing through intelligible means rather than sensory ones. This eliminates the blindness which sensory knowledge is inherently accompanied by. Cathartic courage is the soul being turned away from the concerns of the body, such as pain, fear, and discomfort, but also death. Prudence, is the presence of desires exclusively directed by psychic considerations, as opposed to bodily impulses. And finally Justice, still guarantees the cooperation of the virtues, in this case allowing the rule of reason and intellect without opposition [7].
As the practitioner turns away from concerns of the physical world, naturally they turn away from the suffering of others. They regard their body with a form of indifference, and do likewise for the bodies of others. Where the post-christian vitalist is mistaken though is the order of operations. They see that the noble sage has no regard for others (in the traditional sense) and takes this to be first step. They mistake an accident of the goal to be the means of achieving said goal.
Furthermore, while the sage has no regard for others, this dispassion is not the same as a complete lack of care. Indeed, the sage is said to give to others without taking away from himself [8]. Plotinus (by all accounts a Neoplatonic sage) is said to have taken care over the education of the young people in his community, whist also housing several widows and orphans. What the sage lacks is merely a passionate interest in the affairs of others, but he does not lack other directedness altogether[9].
[1]: I should point out here that this term is mostly applied by opponents of this view, but I have not been able to find a better term, so this is the one I am sticking with.
[2]: When I say ‘Neoplatonist’ in this post, I specifically refer to Plotinus and Porphyry and to a lesser extent Plato’s Phaedo (which I take to be the progenitor of Neoplatonic thought.
[3]: I say ‘claim’ here for the simple reason that I sincerely doubt that anyone ACTUALLY thinks and acts this way. Sure, there are plenty of people who chart their own course and care little about the needs or sufferings of others, but I do not think that these people – rationally – believe their behaviour to be moral. Scott Alexander wrote a nice post about this just a few days ago [4].
[4]: astralcodexten.com/p/everyones-a-based-post-christian
[5]: “The One’’ the absolutely ontologically prior principle in Neoplatonic philosophy. “The sage’’ is the person who spends their life in pursuit of The One in a semi mystical way [6].
[6]: I say semi-mystical because the term ‘mystic’ is incredibly loaded. I wont go in to this now, but I have a paper which may be published int he next year or two which addresses this topic.
[7]: This section is a direct quote from my master’s dissertation, as I cannot currently be bothered re-writing it. The information contained therein is based upon Porphyry’s ‘sentences’.
[8]: This is a paraphrase based on Plotinus’ statements in the Enneads about The One and the attitude the sage has towards his body.
[9]: The argument is clearly underdeveloped in this formulation, and while I would love to expand on it here, a blog post is simply not the right place. As mentioned, I have an article which may be published over the next few years on these topics. In its current form, the work is about 80 single-spaces pages, much too long for a post I would say. I will of course update this blog if i ever do manage to get this work published. For the impatient, I recommend Pauliina Remes’ work in the field. A good introduction is ‘Plotinus’ Ethics of Disinterested Interest’.
All of my writing and software projects are available free of charge under CC-BY unless stated otherwise. I do not accept monetary donations, but if my work has brought you value I ask you to donate to a charitable cause or high-impact fund, organisation, business, institute, or individual driving moral progress.
For more information about making a moral impact, search for “giving what we can’’, “give well’’, or “effective altruism’’.