Given the awareness of the herd and its dangers granted to the noble, is there not a certain call to action to prevent the herd from systemizing (or to alleviate the damages created from it)? Indeed this perpetuates the noble’s slavery to the herd, but at least there is not the Nietzsche-ian complacency/nihilism to which he seems happily resigned. “Forget about the world and its ills, go where your thoughts lead you” – in my case, certainly, such ambling, while ringing a certain truthful resonance within me, never results in product. I do believe that it is only a certain type of person that can conceive of systems with an “outside” perspective; this viewpoint affords one the ability to see the system as a system like others. This crucial a allows for decisions to be made about the systems one wishes to align themselves with, for even Nietzsche contends that to be human is to abide by some sort of habit, though it must be viewed and enacted dynamically.

If the herd is a problem, then how is Nietzsche not drawn to ponder structures to mitigate it. I do not doubt that it is the protestant ethic with which I was raised (but don’t seem to show) rearing its ugly head which fuels such a drive. While I am aware of the fallacy in trading one power structure/system for another, pragmatically, the lesser of two evils is all the better. Even if this is not the case, the very revolution by which the paradigm/god would shift would result in at least temporarily a period of muddle resembling godlessness.

Humans are political/social creatures and as such “the survival of the species” depends on the collective, the herd. Did Nietzsche build his own house? Did Nietzsche kill his own food? Did Nietzsche give birth to and raise himself? Is this not the inescapable slavery of human existence? Is resignation and acceptance, becoming Uncle Tom, really a viable alternative when the only real comfort seems to come from being cognizant of shackles to which others are blind; give me ignorance! (not really though; I’m enjoying myself)

The very denial of a priori truth denies itself as per the construction of our language. And so elucidating this philosophy and using it to critique prior moralities might never be able to be disproved, what does it get you other than an intellectual hard-on? The system is broken, fixing it is impossible, and destruction isn’t a tangible option; the attempted consolation Nietzsche provides is a sort of stoic contradiction of thought – by rejecting Truth, one can never be Wrong.

Destruction is impossible; God is never truly dead, as another one will pop up in its place. If we believe progress to be bunk and nobility to be an inherent quality, then there is no social progression towards the destruction of the herd. The herd will not disappear but its master can change; I’ll put it this way – if I were in charge, things would be a lot better!