Philosophical Terminology

The question has been brought to me before, why use all of this philosophical terminology? There is a reason, and that reason is to write with the necessary degree of precision for the best possible elucidation. Take these two examples, the first one I wrote with very little thought behind it, and the second I wrote after further reflection.

I would also like to add that the extremely subjective view of truth that Bill O'Reilly espouses will result in a form of relativism that O'Reilly seems to dislike when it goes against his version of "Traditionalism".

I would like to add that the epistemological relativism that Bill O’Reilly espoused during his interview with Richard Dawkins will contradict the ethical absolutism that he espouses all of the time.

The first statement of mine is written in such a manner that people will be able to pick it apart. To start out with, “extremely subjective view of truth” is not very clear. It could be said that just because truth is subjective, that doesn’t negate it being objective. I could have subjective contents of consciousness which correspond to an objective epistemic ground. Also, adding the adverb “extremely” will not help, it adds nothing to the meaning of subjective. Also when I said relativism in the first sentence, I was not clear in describing what type of relativism he is espousing. Also, it was a problem to use Traditionalism for a theoretical backing to explain the type of relativism I meant. When O’Reilly uses Traditionalism, he is clearly using it as a persuasive definition; he doesn’t have any of the theoretical backing that Evola does when he used the term Traditionalism. The problem in the first statement is that it is open to heavy interpretation, because of the lack of precision that comes from the words used.

The second statement of mine escapes many of these problems. The first is that epistemological relativism has a very precise meaning because of both the words are part of a tradition in which a heavy amount of philosophical theory gives meaning to both of the words, and there was a sophist named Protagoras whose philosophy has elements which give an exact meaning to the terms. The reality is that epistemological relativism is univocal in its meaning. It is also true of ethical absolutism that it has a very precise meaning because of the philosophical theory behind these two words. It is true that there are different proponents of ethical absolutism ranging from Kant to supposed divine commands. Though for the sake of the argument, it is clear from watching O’Reilly that he has an ethical absolutism based upon this black and white view of reality that reminds me of a 1980’s wrestling match. The main point is that the language used in the second statement is very precise, and that is due to the use of philosophical terminology.

The goal is to write things in such a way that an educated audience will be able to discern the meaning. I was reading The Principle Upanishads yesterday, and I read a section which compared the Vedantic metaphysics to the Neoplatonic metaphysics. If I remember correctly it saw the Brahman as equivalent to the One, Ishvara was seen as equivalent to the Nous, and Hiranya Garbha as equivalent to the World Soul, and the Viraj as the World. Would I expect people to know what these words mean? The answer would be no, these words are part of a very specialized metaphysics, both the Vedantic and Neoplatonic. That doesn’t excuse people from being lazy and not referencing the meaning. Though I could see how it would be hard to read a text if almost every other word was part of some hermetic jargon. I would like to end it with saying that words like epistemology and metaphysics are not part of some hermetic jargon; these are words that you should know if you happen to take part in academic discussions.

I strongly defend the use of philosophical terminology, since these words were originally coined so that we might have the precision necessary to adequately express our thoughts. If I wanted to tell somebody to go to the store to get me some food, I wouldn’t say to that person, go to the place to get me some things. That is entirely too vague. By the same token, I do not need to use philosophical terminology when telling people to go to the store to get me some food. Those simple words adequately express my thoughts for the purpose at hand. The reality is that the philosophical words are necessary to explain philosophical concepts. This is something that I felt needed to be said.

On a side note, here is a good example of what I had to make sense of when I wanted to understand Vedantic and Buddhist metaphysics seriously.

Buddha taught that - everything is kshaNika, sva-lakshaNa, dukha, and shoonya.
This upadEsha of Buddha that everything is shoonya, was understood by yOgAchAra as external bAhya-artha is shoonya but the internal knowledge is not.

The point is that if I wanted to take a serious approach to their metaphysics, I would have to understand the language.

Richard Dawkins versus Bill O'Reilly

I was listening to Bill O’Reilly interview Richard Dawkins on Atheism, and though I respect his civility, I must say that he was intellectually outclassed by Richard Dawkins, and his basis for belief in god is based upon ignorance. Please click here for the link to the discussion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECRvNRquvI

Bill O’Reilly starts by asserting what seems to be either a prelude to an argument by design or a god of the gaps argument, when he states that we could not have had natural phenomena like “the tides coming in, and the tides coming out”, and “the sun goes up, and the sun goes down” without god. Richard Dawkins then states that science can give good explanations for all of these natural phenomena. Then Bill O’Reilly states that it must have come somewhere, and to Richard Dawkins that he has to make a leap of faith, since he cannot explain "how it all got here". Richard Dawkins then responds that the burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim, which in this sense is the positive claim about the existence of god. This could have been fruitful if the discussion proceeded towards the argument by design, and its philosophical merit. But instead of that Richard Dawkins then responds by saying to Bill O’Reilly that he could believe in an infinite number of gods, and why choose the Judeo-Christian god out of all of these. This is where he “checkmated” Bill O’Reilly. Bill O’Reilly responded that Jesus was a historical figure whereas "Apollo doesn’t look so good". First of all, being a historical figure is a ridiculous criteria for truth about a transcendent being, and secondly, this would justify contradicting claims on the nature of god, since there are many historical figures that founded religions, like Buddha, Mahavira, and Mohammed. This is where O’Reilly starts to develop his comment of “you guys can’t tell me how it all got here”, to more of a god of the gaps argument, rather than an argument by design. The reason for this is because Richard Dawkins very rightly states that science is ever waxing in knowledge of reality, and though we still don’t know everything, we must allow this method to understand more and more of reality, and the response of Billy O’Reilly was until you guys figure all of it out, I will stick to Judeo-Christian philosophy. The discussion then proceeds towards the cultural value of atheism versus religion.

The problem with this argument from Bill O’Reilly is that it boxes any spiritual or theistic outlook into a little corner. Since god is all powerful, he can be used as an explanation for natural phenomena yet unknown. This will limit the concept of god to what is beyond the terminus of our knowledge to explain things in our ignorance. This appeal to ignorance will get constantly weakened as we increase in knowledge of the natural world. What Bill O’Reilly is attempting to do is no different from explaining the lightning bolts as arrows from Perun or the weapon of Zeus. Also, I do believe that no serious adherent to a form of a pre-Christian European paganism presently holds to this explanation of natural events, except in maybe an allegorical sense.

There is also the fact that Bill O’Reilly seems to have a bad understanding of the word truth when he claims that his religion is true for him, whereas it might not be true for Richard Dawkins. I don’t like to think of truth as entirely subjective. Though I do acknowledge that it is important for the human mind to form correct beliefs about things, I believe it is equally important for those beliefs to correspond to an epistemic ground that justifies them. I do know that Kierkegaard uses the phrase, truth is subjective, to support his existentialism. Kierkegaard needed to find a new term to get at what he is meaning, rather than truth. For example, it has little existential meaning for a human that Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492, though it is true, whereas the religious belief of a person can have great existential meaning for them, even though it is not proven true. So Kierkegaard has point to make, though the term he uses only creates confusion. Does Bill O’Reilly have the philosophical sophistication to explain his point in this Kierkegaardian manner? He probably does not. I will be honest, much to the shock of people, I don’t dislike Bill O’Reilly, and I do find him very entertaining. I just don’t see him as a towering intellect.

After watching this discussion, I believe that it is an imperative that we must develop an intelligent metaphysics. I believe that the Aryan metaphysics we see in Vedanta and Buddhism would not experience the defeat that Bill O’Reilly did from Richard Dawkins. In either the next or next after posting, I will do this by writing my long overdue paper on the Paticca Sammupada and Transcendental Idealism.

I would like to add that the epistemological relativism that Bill O’Reilly espoused during this interview with Richard Dawkins will contradict the ethical absolutism that he espouses all of the time.

Cultural ideal

I ended the last article by saying that substantial freedoms are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for happiness. The reason that I say this is because substantial freedoms give us the capabilities to pursue our projects. What they don’t give us is the will, motivation, and perseverance to achieve those projects. This is where we need both an ethical and aesthetic ideal that see both excellence and beauty in human projects that center around health, art, and intelligence. If a person does not have an ethos that sees excellence in knowledge, and he does not see the sage or philosopher ideal as beautiful, no amount of substantial freedoms will promote this ideal. This is where I am “conservative”; this is where I side with people like Nietzsche and now the European New Right. This is where I see the most glaring error in Marxism, which believes that economic conditions alone will cause a society to thrive. It is not just the poverty in the inner cities which creates a vile type of human; it is also the ideals that are sought after. How can people thrive when pimps are the ideal type of man, and a whore is the ideal type of woman? The reality is that this cancerous culture has spread to all of America, and will only serve to degrade people further. I do agree that we need an economic system which is more just than the present one, and that consumer capitalism promotes this wretched ideal of a human, since this debased being tends to be a prodigious overall consumer, so he is good for the economy. It is just as important, if not more so important, no! I would say definitely more so important that we embrace the ideals that core to the Indo-European / Aryan Weltanschauung! The overall meaning that is derived from us being in the world needs to be grounded in the ethics, aesthetics, and religious sentiments of the ancient Indo-Europeans.

Also, I know that some of you might be critical of me for asserting that substantial freedoms are necessary for the flourishing of man. You will base this upon Stoic morality which sees wealth and health as preferred indifferents, not absolutely necessary for virtue. Interestingly, this is probably the main point of contention between a Stoic and an Aristotelian. I don’t want to make this an imaginary debate between a Stoic and an Aristotelian.

Capitalism - Part 2

In the previous essay, I dealt with the erroneous idea of most Libertarians that property rights as defined by Locke are based upon these eternal verities of truth and justice. There is another way that proponents of free-market capitalism try to justify their outlook, and that is through a utilitarian method which sees the ultimate good in society as produced wealth, and states that capitalism is the most efficient system of producing wealth. This can be done through an appeal to history which states the all the nations that have embraced capitalism have thrived, whereas those that have not have remained in stagnation. The problem is that we can't determine the absolute success of a system by an appeal to history. We have no knowledge of multiple human histories to create some type of criteria to judge this history upon, and because of that we don't know both the time period to determine the absolute success of a system, and all of the other societal factors that an economic system is contingent upon for its success. Just as proponents of free market capitalism claim that the success of corporatism in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy cannot be attributed to only the economic system, because there were so many other factors, like a war time economy, and it was only established for such a short time, that is the same argument that the Marxists use against capitalism, mainly the argument that capitalism has only been around for a short period in history, and there are a lot of factors that need to be considered. The proponent of capitalism will have to resort to associating the multitude of societal factors in a way that will always explain away a present problem of capitalism, but will always posit capitalism as the ultimate economic system. This is no different from the Marxists who don't disagree with the proponents of capitalism as far as the historical facts are concerned, but posit different historical theories to explain these facts. I am reminded of Francis Fukuyama's "end of history" claim at the demise of Soviet Union, when he stated that we have achieved the end of history in liberal democracy and a free-market economy, only to have Radical Islam creep up on the world stage, but I am sure he would explain that away. To try to assert that capitalism is the most effective system because of the last 200 years will be a futile attempt. The conservative position of somebody like a Hume will just say that it works, and that we must use the "wisdom of tradition" for our judgments. This is limited in that it doesn't allow us to make claims that capitalism is the most successful system, it is limited to just that it works, and if it is "not broke then don't fix it". This doesn't allow for any sort of human innovation as far as economic policies are concerned, there would be no method to deal with present problems like environmental ones. The other way is to posit some meta-history like Fukuyama does, but this always runs the problem of when new factors and problems come to play, how are they explained. Do we use the meta-history of Fukuyama, or the meta-history of Marx to explain them. As I said, we do not have knowledge of previous human histories to determine the veracity of Fukuyama's theory, or that of the Marxists, and yes the present day Marxists have adapted to explain away the problems that history seemed to give to Marx's initial theory. The other way that free-market capitalists try to defend their position is through a philosophical discipline of human action called praxeology. I am new to this disclipline, but from a very cursory understanding it doesn’t seem to have the needed level of explanatory power. I say this because from what I read praxeology sharply distinguishes itself from psychology, in that it makes no claims on human motivation, just on human action, and the consequences of these actions. But for the sake of the original argument, let us assume that capitalism generates the most wealth.

The argument would be something like this, if the ultimate good to be maximized is overall wealth, and capitalism as a system generates the most overall wealth, then it would be the best system. This does not take into consideration how that wealth is distributed; it is true that we are experiencing greater and greater polarization of wealth amongst the members of society. This also does not take into consideration the rights of workers as far as putting a limit to the hours a week they can work, so they can pursue activities necessary for the flourishing of a human being. This includes both the social, creative, physical, and rational dimension of man. Why would overall wealth be a good thing? The proponents of free-market capitalism would throw a whole bunch of reasons, until it is viewed from the human level, then they would say that it allows for humans to pursue projects that were never before possible. This is where the argument lies, because one of the main criticisms of distributism against capitalism is that is creates conditions in society where people are not free to pursue these truly human projects. Thus the goal would be to produce these substantial freedoms that allow for people to live flourishing lives. The way to do this would not be to increase wealth indiscriminately, but to produce goods and services that add to human capabilities. The bring this back to the Kantian perspective of the last essay, to have these substantial freedoms that allow for both these imperfect and perfect virtues to be manifest from the Kantian view. There are two questions that arise from this. Is free market capitalism the best system at the overall distribution of substantial freedoms, and will substantial freedoms alone create the conditions for the flourishing of the human being? I believe the answer to both of these questions is no. The answer to the first would be based in the some of the economic principles of corporatism and distributism. I would urge my readers to look into those economic systems. The answer to the second would be in the notion of an aesthetic-ethical cultural ideal, which I will go into this in the next essay. Substantial freedoms would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for human flourishing.

Capitalism - Part 1

I have been told at times that I have this irrational hatred of capitalism that is based upon a misunderstanding of economic principles. My experience has been that people who place this accusation against me have little or no understanding of the philosophical principles of property rights, systems of justice, and an intelligent understanding of history. I do believe that capitalism can be defended on utilitarian grounds, because it has been shown to be effective at producing wealth. This then brings up the question of what is the ultimate good to be maximized. This good could be overall wealth, it could be substantial freedoms, or it could be technological advancement. Without defining what this ultimate good is to be maximized, we are left to be skeptical of capitalism’s defense on utilitarian grounds. In this posting, I will not deal with capitalism on utilitarian grounds, but I will deal with how the people who defended capitalism as a “natural system of liberty” tried to establish the moral justification of property in an of itself independent of the utility it produced. I will deal with the utilitarian aspect in the next posting.

It is true that Adam Smith saw free market capitalism as the “natural system of liberty”. This is true of other classical liberals, though they might have not used these exact words. Their belief was that it is the morally correct system, and that other systems are unjust. In this society, the government clearly promotes the interests of the capitalist classes, but this was not always the case. Previous forms of governments used to promote the interests of regal or sacerdotal classes. It is a historical fact that land used to be allotted to warlords so that they would provide military service when the king so required. Their property was allotted to them through a title. It is also stated in the second chapter and 100^th verse of Manu Smriti, that the Brahmins are entitled to everything, that all the property is theirs. The reality is that the system of justice of those societies had justified property rights in a way that the classical liberals would have thought to be unjust. So they will not like arguments that it is the state and its system of justice that gives moral sanction to a person owning specific property. They will not like the approach of either Hume or Hobbes who both see the state or sovereign as the ultimate justification of property. Here is a quote from Hume to show his argument.

Our property is nothing but those goods, whose constant possession is establish'd by the laws of society; that is, by the laws of justice. Those, therefore, who make use of the words property, or right, or obligation, before they have explain'd the origin of justice, or even make use of them in that explication, are guilty of a very gross fallacy, and can never reason upon any solid foundation. A man's property is some object related to him. This relation is not natural, but moral, and founded on justice. Tis very preposterous, therefore, to imagine, that we can have any idea of property, without fully comprehending the nature of justice, and shewing its origin in the artifice and contrivance of man. The origin of justice explains that of property. The same artifice gives rise to both.

If I was to analyze the sphere of activity that man operates in, there are certain things that can be strongly associated with him and other things that cannot be strongly associated with him. The association of the person with his actions is so strong that many philosophical issues are brought up, including that of free will, responsibility, and intentionality. The same can also be said of mental states, the association of a person with his memories and experiences are so strong that it brings up the philosophical question of personal identity. This is not the case with property; there is no immutable bond between an object in nature and a specific person. That bond can be easily disrupted at anytime, either voluntarily or involuntarily, it is vulnerable to a disruption that never is the case with personal actions or mental states. Therefore the goal of the classical liberals, the most paradigm example, that of John Locke was to justify property through a person mixing his labor into an object. Here is Locke’s argument.

Though the Earth…be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other Men.

The argument to make any sense is that somehow when I mix my labor into an object in nature, its arrangement is based upon a force that is part of me, and thus it belongs to me. The reality is that this argument from labor which was held by most proponents of free market capitalism is either reduced to an absurdity or ironically has become ammunition for some of the most ardent anti-capitalists, which are communists. The reality is that there is no magical force that emanates from me when I alter something in nature, the form that it presently has is not dependent on me, or is part of me. If I die, then the form of that object still remains. This argument is also used by the Marxists in defending the worker as constantly mixing his labor in the world, and the capitalist classes just functioning as exploiters who cease to mix there labor into object. This argument also leads to absurd conclusions like me dropping my sandwich on a person’s car, and thus mixing my labor into it, and it then becomes mine. For the Lockean to defend this argument he must add aspects that come from other justifications of property that I am more sympathetic towards. The first is the difference between me dropping my sandwich on a person’s car versus me creating something productive like a chair out of wood. This distinction tends to invert this process, thus not seeing the person as developing property, but property as the development of the self. It is the person that creates, and thus is able to engage in giving and exchange, and thus is able to further his existence as an ethical being. The same aspect is necessary for the classical liberal to provide a distinction between him and the Marxists, in that once the labor has been mixed by the original person, the people that work for him respect his property, and have engaged in a contract with him. This then leads to the Kantian view of property as the substantial aspect of free agency, and then it forces other into duties, in this sense the duty to uphold contracts, and not steal. Therefore if duties are imposed on others, they have a right in determining how property rights are established. This is the point where I disagree with liberalism; people are not on islands that exist separate from other people. The fact that you have property forces ethical duties on me to respect your property; it is a community of free and ethical beings that validate your property rights. If the community of free and ethical beings comes to the rational conclusion to redistribute wealth so that many people will have substantial freedoms like health care, proper nutrition, and education so that some girl does not get her sweet 16, then it is justified, because your wealth is justified in the sense that an ethical community justifies it. The ethical community should clearly not justify this, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1065908992986670309&q=mtv+sweet+sixteen&hl=en

when there are many that do not have the substantial freedoms like proper nutrition, health care, and education.

The Kantian and Hegelian basis for property rights will lead us to a different system. Property in this sense will not be seen as something which can be attained through the vicious means, and then can be used indiscriminately for activities which serve only to degrade overall humanity. Property will be seen as the substantial aspect of a free being, which will allow him to pursue truly human projects. In the next posting I will deal with economics from a more utilitarian perspective, in where I will go into the good that is to be maximized.

Manu Smriti II – 100. Whatever exists in the world is the property of the Brahmana; on account of the excellence of his origin the Brahmana is indeed, entitled to it all.

Point of Clarification
I have had a friend tell me that the sandwich example is bad because it doesn’t show intention, and a sandwich is not a tool like a wrench, therefore there is no labor being done. The point was to reduce it to an absurdity. For Locke it is the person affecting the object, so if he is the first person in the line of efficient causes, it doesn’t matter whether he had intention or the intermediate causes were done through tools. This was to contrast it with the Hegelian notion of property as affecting the self. For Hegel it is property that will allow us to get outside of pure-subjectivity, what is in the mind gets actualized. Think of the Aristotelian example of the artist and the granite making the statue. The final cause which is in the mind of the artist is the manifest in the formal cause of the statue. This creativity and embrace of rationality ties in very strongly with the Kantian idea of property as the substantial form of free agency. What that means for Kant is that the freedom of the will which is necessary for a moral being inwardly finds its outward expression in property for a system of laws. To put it in a different language, the Self is not enlarged by some physical imprint on a natural object that bears resemblance to the person. We are not like male cats spraying an object. It is the Self being enlarged through his rationality being expressed upon nature in a technical manner, and thus using that same rationality in an ethical manner with other rational beings. It is that the rationality of man is the foundation for the Geist that is expressed in the technical and ethical nature of man.

Duke Rape Case Scandal - My analysis

The news has presented us with an interesting case study for further analysis. That is the Duke Rape case. The three parties that I wish to focus on in this incident are the Black “Social Justice” organizations, the District Attorney Michael Nifong, and the accuser in the case.

I was watching the O’Reilly Factor last night when Bill decided to give his two cents on this issue. Because of the “mental state” of the accuser, he felt it would be cruel to attack her, and so he directed his attacks to Michael Nifong. As much as I believe that Michael Nifong is a despicable individual, there are still some things that need to be said about the accuser. It is possible that she isn’t morally blameworthy in this situation because she might not qualify as a moral being. Considering the circumstances that she was raised in, the behavior that she learned to imitate is not that of virtuous people. Also, she probably does not have the intellectual ability to morally reflect on situations, and thus is unable to adjust accordingly to what practical reason should dictate. I will let my readers interpret what should follow according to their own value system, whether that is one of the bleeding heart liberal, or possibly the classical wisdom of Aristotle.

My next analysis will be that of the Black “Social Justice” organizations. From the start we saw the New Black Panther party protesting at Duke. Jesse Jackson also made comments against the lacrosse players. To really understand this it is good to take into consideration the O.J Simpson case, just as the evidence clearly showed his guilt, and the case against the Duke Lacrosse players was terrible, the mindset of Black America was to free O.J. Simpson and skewer the Duke Lacrosse players. Why is this the case? I believe this is because of the way that Black movements see justice. Rather than justice dealing with individual persons, which deals with their individual actions and punishes or rewards them accordingly, the Black movements like the Feminist movements see justice in a Marxist way. From this Marxist outlook, what really matters are these classes or power structures, and the conflicts between them. From the perspective of the Black movements, there is perceived to be this class that holds too much power, and oppresses other people. Let’s call him “whitey” or “the man”. Well anytime a big name case involves both blacks and whites; it ceases to be about the individuals and their actions, but that of a way to defeat “whitey” or “the man”. It is not very important that O.J. Simpson murdered two people, why is justice important on an individual level. It is also not important that these Duke students were innocent; if it is a good way to attack this white power structure. It is all about weakening the white class, and strengthening the black class to try to achieve their desired equilibrium, that is where true justice lies. This is important to understanding these ideologies, whether they be Black or Feminist, justice is not important on an individual level, it is all about “social justice”.

I will end with my analysis of Michael Nifong, someone who should be seen as a failure of a human being, and should live in public shame till the day he dies. This is a man who saw as his only good in life that of his career goal. He was willing to destroy the lives of three students and their families so that he might retain his position as District Attorney. There used to be the distinction between techne and praxis. That is the distinction between being good at your technical skill, and being good at being a human. This person did not value the end of a being virtuous human being who promotes justice, but rather a career goal in which any means to achieve this end, no matter how vile, were justified. Michael Nifong is a paradigm example of the problem of the “career mentality” that exists in this country. Many people have chosen to pursue a wretched human existence if it means the goal of economic success, because the notion of the good life is seen as too anachronistic.

Nietzsche and the Sky Father

In the same book where Nietzsche declares that “God is dead”, there is also a passage that reads like a prayer to the highest Aryan deity, Dyaus Pitr, who is the Shining Sky Father.

O sky above me! O pure, deep sky! You abyss of light! Gazing into you, I tremble with divine desires. To cast myself into your height---that is my depth! To hide myself in your purity ---that is my innocence! And when I wandered alone what did my soul hunger after by night and on treacherous paths? And when I climbed mountains, whom did I always seek, if not you upon mountains? And all my wandering and mountain climbing, it was merely a necessity and an expedient of clumsiness: my whole will desires only to fly, to fly into you!

Even though I believe that the notion of autonomy articulated by certain dialectical philosophers is superior to the notion of liberty that is expressed by individuals like Locke, I also believe that the notion of the Nietzsche’s Sovereign Individual is superior to that of autonomy. Nietzsche also lists two more affirmative types in that of the Noble and the Artist. In the above paragraph with great artistic reverence Nietzsche saw the shining sky father, and it will be through the ancient Aryan religious sentiment that both our sovereignty and nobility will be realized as well.