Shift in Thought from Nietzsche entry

So as I continue reading the Crime Library masterpiece, I learned a bit more about Nietzche.
He noted the difference between those courageous enough to construct their own morality, versus those who were classified as "followers and let others do their thinking for them."

I am really perplexed by this idea of constructing one's own morality. It is quite impossible, and you can never be original or successful in making a morality that is truly your own. One's environment is a constant constant constant constant constant and reliably dependable presence. Unless you're Tom Hanks in that movie. What was it? "Cast Away" or something? And you have to be born on a secluded island and survive on your own, without a mother's love or any other external influence, in order to truly carve your own morality. That's impossible, because without care, one is unable to survive. That established, social conditioning will always be a determinant factor in one's shaping of one's own set of beliefs. I think those cheesy and unoriginal strict Nietzsche adherents, who obviously are not courageous enough to think on their own, adopt Nietzsche's advice and go on a power-trip quest to mold their own non-conformist morality. And the only way your morals can be non-conformist, is if they are totally detached from Christianity--since the majority of people are Christian and God-fearing. So alternately, they go extreme and adopt crime and depravity as their morality. They are so afraid of being associated with the goodness & pureness that Christianity (supposedly) inspires, that they go to the opposite side of the spectrum. That is so childish and immature. Criminals are really dumb & therefore, even if they think they are non-conformist, because the ideal that they are so determined to reject is essentially conformist, their act of being deliberately rebellious to conformity exposes them as still conformists.

I find my own values as not attached to any specific School, but they are derived from cumulative experiences. My encounters with others' beliefs, or lessons I've learned throughout the years, that have inspired in me enlightenment or moments of epiphany. I've collected those ideas and adopted them as my morality, which in turn is always in flux, as I am always undergoing new experiences. And I admit that my beliefs are socially influenced. They are definitely influenced by conformity, but that I am not deliberately conforming or rebelling, I feel that my Thought is open and unbound to restriction.

And I've come up with a policy a while ago, where I couldn't accept people as Academics if they were adherents to the Ultimate Institution of Religion. Here's a new one: Until anybody learns to adopt truly original beliefs, I refuse to respect them, either.

Nietzsche & crime?

I was on Crime Library again. I went on one of those obsessive crime-story-addicted rushes after watching Gladiator Days on MSNBC, about the "Show and Tell" murder. As I browsed the library, I opened a few files that piqued my interest, one of which was entitled "Nietzsche inspired Hitler and Other Killers." I know about Nietzsche from Gonzalez; that was my first encounter. And since then, I've only understood Nietzsche as some Godless philosopher. Okay. So that's all I know about him--he's Godless. So when I see the headline "Nietzsche inspired...Killers." What a surprise to find that in a Christian society?

But turn it around. How about when God inspires crime? I went through so many headlines, and didn't find anything (in the title, at least) that mentions Religion inciting horror. How misrepresented. What about those cult leaders? I once was speaking with a Christian friend, who was gushing about how he communicates with his God and how his God would never put him into a horrible situation. So I ask, how does he respond to the multiple cult leaders and killers in history that have pointed at God as the instigator Who instructed them to kill? Then my friend recalls the only case he knew of (obviously he's not very familiar with the cult history) and quickly points out, "He was a ________; not a Christian." I forget which denomination he separated himself from, but it was a branch of Christianity. So if it was a branch of Christianity, it means that the cult leader believed in the same glorious God that my friend believed in. So if God put the cult leader in the position to mass-murder, what makes my friend believe that God will have mercy and bestow grace on him? It's a moral binary. I finally understand what Krazy Katz was talking about during that lecture on moral binary in Hollywood.

So back to Nietzsche. I excerpt this quote from that poorly-written Crime Library entry... Yes, they are all poorly-written, elementary-style masterpieces.

" Tulloch was a reader of Nietzsche, and was especially impressed with the idea that, without God, there were no absolute moral values. A powerful individual could decide what was right — including murder — and do it."

See the italicized. I am absolutely disgusted with the false link between morality and Religion. Why do people think that they need Religion, that they need some Supreme being, that they need some false and intangible concept to structure their lives? It's a horrendous and erroneous way of thinking. So I quickly read up a bit on Nietzsche--of course through Wikipedia--and I found that the public understanding of his philosophy is widely misperceived and disconnected. His famous quote "God is dead," juxtaposed with his anti-Religion philosophy, leads many to believe that he held an immoral approach to Life, when in fact--at least from how I understood Wikipedia--he believed that one should not turn to Religion to seek values. Rather, one must look within oneself. I couldn't agree more.

Wikipedia also brought up the point that in his lifetime, he was not as popular a writer. I never read Tuesdays with Morrie, I feel maybe I should; but I know the basic foundation of the book. Why show appreciation for significant people postmortem, when you can honor them during life. But whatever, that was a tangent. I appreciate reading philosophy. I like to absorb (and inevitably, filter) ideas that I like and dislike. But I think it is so unoriginal to adopt a so-called philosopher's set of ideas fully. I believe that everyone should be their own philosopher, and have unique philosophies of life. Just as how one should always be looking in oneself for value, whatever one considers value comes from personal experiences. Personal experiences. So no doubt, Nietzsche, or any other widely-adhered philosophers' ideas culminate from their cumulative life experiences. According to Wikipedia (this is not an academic paper, so I am allowed to cite Wikipedia!), Nietzsche had death early on in his life. To some extent, however much "extent," that must have affected his thinking somehow. So I guess what I'm advocating is for people to be more original in their values and beliefs. Your code of ethics should derive from your experiences as a person. (And I wish people had more pleasant experiences--growing up in South LA could either make or break your character, I guess.) No one should submit (and incidentally stifle) their freedom to Think to any Religion Institution or School of Thought. I'm not so much a skeptic though, as I am an advocate for "personalized" philosophy.

Yez. Zo I vaz feeling a bit existential.