Nietzsche, Free Spirits, and In-Groups.

Friedrich Nietzsche famously had the concept of a "free spirit," who was someone who breaks free from the inherited dogma's of religion, social norms, tradition, and society in general. Free spirits are hostile to conventional morality and hostile to religious and political absolutes. Free spirits have the courage to acknowledge and forge their own perspective and not just the perspective of their given conventions in society. Free spirits also have the ability when presented with new perspectives to hold their own beliefs up to scrutiny and change their minds and not have fixed beliefs when presented with information.

An in-group is a group in which an individual psychologically identifies as a member of. In-group members tend to have solidarity, loyalty, and a shared sense of belonging with other members of their in-group. In-groups often feel either indifference or antagonism towards members of out-groups. People tend to have positive biases towards other in-group members. Nearly all people have in-groups to some degree, because we all identify with certain perspectives. Whether it's identifying as a liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, theist, atheist, or Nietzsche scholar, because of our communal nature we identify with some community. Humans often think through their in-groups and the language we use can also identify which in-groups we are a member of and which out-groups we are hostile towards. Humans seem to intrinsically have a desire to belong to in-groups.

Problems arise though when someone adopts a team mentality and defends their in-group at all costs even when people within their in-groups do unethical things. In politics I am reminded of people like Sean Hannity on the right, and Kyle Kulinski, on the left who defend their in-group even when their are clear warning signs that some people within their own in-groups are behaving immorally. People cling to the dogma within their own in-groups, often with the certainity of religious cult members. I purpose though that the modern understanding of a Nietzschean "free spirit," is someone who doesn't cling to the dogma of their own in-groups. A free spirit is someone who can break free from the inherited dogma of an in-group and take issues case by case, and issue by issue. They can live freely, live without absolute in-group certainty, and know that all opinions are a perspective. To be a Nietzschian free spirit is to live without an in-group. I believe Nietzsche himself was a free spirit in this sense, because Nietzsche attacked the dogmas of religion, science, democracy, egalitarianism, and even truth itself. Nietzsche lived as a free spirit without the dogma of an in-group.

Some of my other favorite philosophers are Martin Heidegger, Paul Tillich, Isaiah Berlin, and Hannah Arendt. When I think of existential philosophers like Heidegger and Tillich, although Heidegger was an atheist and Tillich was a Christian, their thought was both very heretical when it came to those in-groups and don't fit neatly into any binary. As political philosophers Berlin and Arendt didn't fit neatly into the left/right political in-group binary either. Great thinkers live as Nietzschean free spirits without an in-group, and thus change how we think about the world. Our emanicipation and freedom from in-group dogma produces great critical thinking and great philosophy. To live without an in-group is to be the Nietzschean free spirit of the 21st century. Thank you.