Star Trek's undercurrent of nihilism

[foxmulder710]

Yes, Trek's given philosophy is a sort of scientific-atheist's humanism. But there are radically different philosophies at play, and no one asks the question why the Federation's values are better than the Klingons' or the Borg's or 8472's.

Who is worth inviting into the Federation? Only those societies who agree with "our" (not that humans in general have a very clear idea of this, at all, already) conceptions of good and evil? That's arrogant.

I mean, I'll fight to survive and think it's nice that a government enshrines and enforces my desire to be and fuck and eat and own property. But other cultures - particularly the Borg, note - have RADICALLY different aims. And who gives anyone else the right - and who can? or who could? - to dictate to a culture that their aims are not worthy of pursuit, or else more or less worthy than mine are?

 

[An Officer]

General trek?

 

[foxmulder710]

Yeah, sorry; please transfer me there.


*umpteenth time Fox has neglected the right thread*...sorry.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Vee are nihilists, vee believe in nothing

I actually get to see a GTD thread before it gets moved there and I'm forced to read it. That means I'm ahead of the curve.

Star Trek seems to go back and forth between an IDIC philosophy where there is no wrong culture and a federation-centric moralism where there is clearly evil that has to be stopped. I think it depends a lot on which works better for the plot

 

[Jadzia]

Who is worth inviting into the Federation? Only those societies who agree with "our" (not that humans in general have a very clear idea of this, at all, already) conceptions of good and evil? That's arrogant.

Is it not more about mutual self-interest? That is predominantly an interest in self preservation? The Federation invites nations who strengthen the existing member nation's ability to maintain their own survival and stability.

Good and evil are relative to an extent. In war, both sides can drop the same number of bombs, fire the same number of bullets, and score the same number of kills... The difference between good and evil sides is only in which one fired the first bullet, which is an insignificant part of the whole lot of damage.

The Borg actively transform the self-interest of a person to that of it's own self-interest, through the relatively swift assimilation process. Although that act may be unethical, the assimilated person's don't complain about their new personalities.

 

[Crusher Disciple]

Thought this was going to General Trek.

It landed in MISC.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

This is where it was posted, wasn't it?

 

[Holdfast]

^ No, well, not any more.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

And welcome to GTD

I'll stop spamming the thread (so I won't have to be warned) and let the discussion continue

 

[ryan123450]

And who gives anyone else the right - and who can? or who could? - to dictate to a culture that their aims are not worthy of pursuit, or else more or less worthy than mine are?

Still present in Trek's humanist atheistic universe must be an underlying morality founded in natural law. The Federation would have to believe that it is wrong for a person to lie, murder, steal, etc., simply because that is the order of the universe.

Taking the Borg for example, they take a person's life from them, violate their bodies and minds, steal ships and planets, etc. This violates the inherient moral order of the universe, and is something the Federation, and indeed anyone wishing to protect the natural order of things, must oppose.

 

[kv1at3485]

"Natural law"? "Order of the universe"?

"Natural law" is merely just a way of saying "the way we believe things should work" in a more dignified manner.

 

[Nardpuncher]

Only those societies who agree with "our" (not that humans in general have a very clear idea of this, at all, already) conceptions of good and evil? That's arrogant.

But other cultures - particularly the Borg, note - have RADICALLY different aims. And who gives anyone else the right - and who can? or who could? - to dictate to a culture that their aims are not worthy of pursuit, or else more or less worthy than mine are?

This is the kind of stuff people stop worrying about and/or discussing once they finish college.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

This is the kind of stuff people stop worrying about and/or discussing once they finish college.

Ha! That reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpW6hRtoUds

 

[c0rnedfr0g]

Like most everything, I think it eventually all boils down to who has the bigger guns....

 

[TheGodBen]

Firstly, the Federation is not an atheistic society, it is secular; you can believe whatever the hell you want so long as the church and state remain separate. It's not trying to dictate a philosophy. Communist Russia was atheistic because they actively tried to stamp out religion.

Secondly, the Federation is based upon the ideals of peace and cooperation. If planet doesn't agree with those goals then why would they want to join? It's not like as if the Klingons or Cardassians or Borg are asking to become members and the Federation wont let them. The goals of those empires does not include membership of such an organisation.

Thirdly, there are no moral absolutes, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't fight on the side of liberty and justice every chance you get.

 

[Bonzo the Fifth]

Not to mention even the most atheistic humanist worth their IQ accepts the principle of free will and self-determination... it's sort of a requirement for any kind of civil harmony in society... as such, our primary role as a society is to preserve said right for all beings, it being the one and only thing that we owe our fellow men. This is not mandated by any higher authority than the logic of simple self-preservation. By acting to protect the system which (ostensibly) protects my right to act as I will (which consequently also protects the majority of others' rights to do so as well), I help create a society that best benefits me, without me having to constantly worry about "who's after me lucky charms" this time...

As such all rights end the moment you begin to exercise yours in a way that encroaches on others' ability to do so, whether that's via actively stealing resources in the manner of a their or embezzler, through acts such as rape and murder which are, by definition, taken against another's will, and what have you... even slavery would be an objectionable offense, for obvious reasons.

As such, the Borg would be representative of the most abhorrent evil imaginable: A monolithic hive mind intent on taking your freedom of choice away from you to serve its own ends. It is a system of imposed slavery so insidious it's influence extends to the very body and mind itself, even institutionalizing it's constituents after extended exposure into believing they actually want this life in the most diabolical form of Stockholm syndrome possible. Regardless of what a drone or former drone would have to say about their desire to be a part of the Collective, it is patently obvious that no one 'chose' to be a part of it initially. As such, the Borg are guilty of impeding the rights of countless billions of lives in the pursuit of its aims, something which should rightly be stopped, by nearly any moral system in existence, secular or no.

This is humanism, plain and simple, with maybe a bit of Objectivist philosophy thrown in for good measure... Nihilism is, by it's very nature, futile and useless, since one cannot very well do much of anything if you truly feel that nothing matters. This is why Nietzsche derided Nihilism as immature... even if you don't submit to an outer authority to define your moral imperatives, there's nothing stopping you from defining them yourself. Moreover, it is your duty to do so, as simply waiting for orders or doing nothing in the face of a lack thereof is the act of an automaton, not a sentient being.

To me, personally, I feel like Trek has undercurrents of Existentialism, humanism, with the occasional odd thread of holism strung throughout it. I've heard more dystopic philosophies mentioned at times, particularly from the more rabid Star Wars fans, but one thing I can definitely say Trek isn't, it's nihilist...

 

[Shawnster]

Communist Russia was atheistic because they actively tried to stamp out religion.

But not completely. The most common scenes we always saw from Soviet Russia were pictures with St. Peter's Basilica in the background. As much as the Soviets tried to stamp out religion this is evidence they could have tried harder. Now, they may have left it because it's a cultural landmark and unique Russian architecture but that would allow sentimentality to overrule the iron fist. If you want to COMPLETELY eradicate something you remove ALL traces of it.

liberty and justice every chance you get.

Define liberty and justice. You will find these terms are fluid and mean different things to different peoples and different cultures. Very few individuals, groups, governments, etc... outrightly claim, feel or believe they are EVIL. Most times you will find from the past, as well as the present, that liberties restricted are done so in the guise of being "in your best interest." What one person considers justice is perceived as tyranny and oppression by others.

 

[foxmulder710]

Only those societies who agree with "our" (not that humans in general have a very clear idea of this, at all, already) conceptions of good and evil? That's arrogant.

But other cultures - particularly the Borg, note - have RADICALLY different aims. And who gives anyone else the right - and who can? or who could? - to dictate to a culture that their aims are not worthy of pursuit, or else more or less worthy than mine are?

This is the kind of stuff people stop worrying about and/or discussing once they finish college.

That is the kind of closed-minded attitude which breeds blind fascism, Nazism, and social degradation. If we don't try to (a) recognize the differences in-between cultures (that they exist), (b) take these into account when formulating policy, and (c) not be stupidly myopic and arrogant enough to presume that we're always right....when the United States, for example, contaminates other cultures and societies with its policies and "democratic" beliefs without regard for any sense of the "true" well-being (well-being as perceived and understood by those in said cultures) of those people.

Nihilism, though, was too strong a word with which to title the thread. What I mean to emphasize more is the fact that there is a fundamental ambiguity in how Star Trek depicts the future. Psychologically, we happen to generally favor the main characters and the Federation because we identify with them most easily, but that doesn't mean that the Federation is always right...or that moral objectivism is better than moral subjectivism or even moral skepticism...

 

[foxmulder710]

By acting to protect the system which (ostensibly) protects my right to act as I will (which consequently also protects the majority of others' rights to do so as well), I help create a society that best benefits me, without me having to constantly worry about "who's after me lucky charms" this time...

Wait, so you're the leprechaun from those commercials!? I want your autograph!

 

[foxmulder710]

Bonzo, I agree with you that Trek is not nihilist. When I used the phrase "undercurrent," I was suggesting that the morality presented on Trek is generally unquestioned...Interestingly, this is good, to an extent, because for example, growing up watching TOS led me to not only not have any sort of racist leanings but to envision a better world where people could get over such silly war-starting life-ending hangups...in fact, by the time I first encountered racists in school (I'd started Trek around say 3 or 4 years of age and probably learned to speak from it, lol), I found them just silly.

The larger point I was trying to make by starting this thread, though, was a kind of pluralism, I suppose. I agree with your existential assessment (one must come up with some sort of code, even if self-created), but how you can move from that to anything socially acceptable I find difficult...I mean, take the view of the President of the Federation. He has the Prime Directive to consider, but is, say, the survival of the Federation really more important than that of the Klingon Empire? He is biased if you say he himself has the right to decide that, but is the desire for survival - yours, to you, say - more important than mine?