Well, well, well, the writers have read their Neitzsche. As soon as Locke hoisted the corpse on his back I turned to my spouse and said, "Hmm...this seems like Zarathustra"--then, some scanning of my gray matter, and yeah, I remembered that when Zarathustra started to embrace his ubermensch-ness was when he threw that corpse off. Ironic that Locke is embracing it as he carries the corpse...but then again, he is just beginning his journey to become the "tablet-creator," overthrowing the constricting moralisms of Christianity and other symbolic systems for a totally individual, self-invented and self-sufficient, way of being.

Obviously, the writers have said (is it obvious? they did say this, didn't they?) that the island-inhabitants are not dead--but this island seems to be a physical projection or embodiment of a struggle with metaphysics. The question is, whose--Dharma's? And ultimately, the writers'? Will the writers, through the resolution of the narrative arc on Lost, that is, come down on the side of old-fashioned morality (in all its guises, all its shades of gray, all its evil-looks-like-good-looks-like-evil paradoxes) or on the side of the individual's right to live according to self-styled, anarchic, DIY principles?

It certainly seems like something like this is brewing--there are the numerous allusions to political and metaphysical philosophers (the two seem to go hand in hand in some philosophers' writings) and there are numerous allusions to Christianity. For awhile I believed that either James and Locke were brothers, or Conner and Cooper, or Locke and Jack, because of the whole Jacob/Essau allusion. Now it's also clear that there's a heavy dose of Neitzsche thrown in. We know the island is going to become divided (good and evil?) and that Locke is going on his own journey.

This should be interesting!!

Will the writers, through the resolution of the narrative arc on Lost, that is, come down on the side of old-fashioned morality (in all its guises, all its shades of gray, all its evil-looks-like-good-looks-like-evil paradoxes) or on the side of the individual's right to live according to self-styled, anarchic, DIY principles?

I don't see these as two side of anything. Questions of morality, of judging between good and evil, are one thing. Question of the social contract, of if and when certain individual freedoms can be limited by larger society, for the protection of its members, or whether man is only at his most ideal when he lives apart from any constraints -- Locke vs Rouseau (the original ones) -- that's a different question entirely.

They only become related because after a society determines to what degree it can legitimately restrict the actions of its members, the particulars rules they will establish, within those limits, can only come from whatever capacity they have to distinguish good from evil.

I don't see these as two side of anything. Questions of morality, of judging between good and evil, are one thing. Question of the social contract, of if and when certain individual freedoms can be limited by larger society, for the protection of its members, or whether man is only at his most ideal when he lives apart from any constraints -- Locke vs Rouseau (the original ones) -- that's a different question entirely.

They only become related because after a society determines to what degree it can legitimately restrict the actions of its members, the particulars rules they will establish, within those limits, can only come from whatever capacity they have to distinguish good from evil.

No, Rousseau's view of the social contract is entirely predicated on moral authority, on the ability for those within a society to recognize good and evil. You're point makes sense only if a group of people operated under a belief that good and evil exist and evil should be punished.

Neitzche is about overcoming good and evil, not about good vs. evil. He's totally about moving on from what he would characterize as trite, provincial ways of framing one's perspective--those trite, provincial ways being, of course, judeo-christian (and islamic) systems of thought. Hence, the meaning of "ubermensch" or "overman." As I hint at above, to have a society, you can have multiple religions--as we do in the U.S.--because these all agree on distinctions of good and evil. The issues that arise aren't whether good and evil exist, or whether we should be good and steer clear of the "dark side," but whether specific kinds of behaviors can be characterized as good (fighting for a cause) or evil (terrorism). For Neitzsche, as for philosophers like Foucault after him, identity is bound up in the threat of punishment--notions of good and evil form our individual identity and form the identity of modernity nation-states themselves. (Notice how Rousseau emphasizes brute nature, the force and strength that individuals have to rely on in natural states, as something to be avoided--punishment.) So yes, political theory, ethics, and metaphysics are all bound up in one another.

Freedom, at least for Neitzche, becomes a matter of overcoming moralistic notions and overcoming societies of fools. In Zarathustra, everywhere the main character confronts these masses of idiots, and sneers at them.
100%
P.S. -- Rousseau never talked about the social contract as being about governments or the society as a whole as being the arbiters of or even the creators of the social contract. Individuals are the ones who enter in this contract. Government exists insofar as the people let it exist, because it is aligned with their beliefs. It's been several years since I read Rousseau, but I''m pretty sure that's how it plays out in his work.

I have to admit to the 'beauty' of Lost in its gift to give us so many different levels of understanding/comprehension. Perhaps some can only see the black and white of the narrative, but openings exist far beyond simple perspective. I'm happy Lost has a Nietzsche audience...(not that I have read Nietzsche in a while!)

I find it really interesting that a wiki search on eternal return produces one page that discusses both Dharmic religions and Nietzsche. Also, if I remember correctly, didn't Zarathustra begin his journey by retreating into the wilderness? Very cool indeed!

onelittlenumber, I find your comments about Nietzche very interesting. I have a question: do you think that the fact that Locke used another agent to act for him, instead of acting himself, affects his authenticity in his Nietzchean quest?

I have nothing of merit to add to this thread as of yet but would like to thank the contributors for the interesting discussion. Once I blow the dust off my philosophy texts, I'll pitch in.

Just to clarify since I don't know much about it...

In a Nietzchean society, is everyone a sociopath, unable to have a conscience, therefore there is no right or wrong, no good or evil?

Is a Nietzchean society similar to communism? Therefore, it ultimately is a Godless tyranny?

Is Nietzchean society Secular progressive? Does it have no maxims or morality, only scientific to the extreme, perhaps even Nazi-like? Is it essentially machiavellian?

Thanks for the responses!

mmpd--that's a really good question. The fact that Locke couldn't do the revenge killing himself does disrupt the Nietzschean framework, if only from the perspective of the work in question, Thus Sprach Zarathustra. Yet I think that Locke, in deciding for himself that he's not comfortable with murder, is living his authentic existence, with his own DIY principles. I don't think Zarathustra endorses murder or what is considered criminal acts, so much as reacting to three things (in this and other writings): 1) religion's mode of making evil and wrong our natural instincts and bodily desires and functions 2) Christian morality as the judge of all things, particularly as it was forged from master/slave dynamics 3) social systems that deny the relativism or perspectivism of everything, instituting instead absolute perspectives, where for instance robbery or murder never are justified. I think these intertwine--the absolute perspective is usually used with shocking arbitrariness by those in power--the masters. No matter what one's political beliefs are, there are plenty of master/slave creditor/debtor absolute/relative scenarios playing out right now in current events.

I do think its interesting how the Others are so obsessed with all things good and evil, and especially with punishment. Their society, such as it is, seems to be built on the absolute authority and perspective of one person--Ben.

MilwaukeeDanno--these are good questions. A Nietzschean society would be secular, and entirely based on science, but otherwise, I'm not sure what Nietzschean societies would look like because Nietzsche doesn't really have a political philosophy (I was in my original post just trying to extend what I know of different philosophies to how things are socially and politically playing out on Lost). I know from other writings of Nietzche that he did not like Socialists; I also know that Nietzsche himself had a mental breakdown when he saw that horse was being beaten by his "master" and was trying to stop it, or so the story goes. I think his DIY anarchic self-made and self-sufficient ethical perspective, at least as it plays out in Zarathustra (I think it is the only place he talked about the overman or ubermensch, but I may be wrong), is not about random killing or anything like that. It is a critique of current ethical systems, a tearing down of them. It is more reactive than constructive. If a sequel existed, I could imagine that Zarathustra would be finding his own ethical way, just as, I imagine, Locke will be doing. But it's individualistic, it is not built on dialetical, binary good-evil/master-slave mentality. It goes against the herd, against the masses, is not swayed by the masses, just as Locke appears not to be, any longer, either. It's important to note that Nietzsche's affiliation with the Nazis is posthumous and due entirely to his sister's meddling with his writing afterwards, reordering it, taking out things, in a way that would have been totally opposed to Nietzsche's own wishes. After meddling with a particular manuscript, she took that manuscript and gave it to the Nazis. Nietzsche expressed anti-semitism, I think, that's true, but the Nazis represent everything he was against.

Nietzsche is pietzsche! (sorry, couldn't resist.)

I get more of a Buddhist sensibility from Locke. He's at a point of reaching spiritual emptiness and then he will attain enlightment through the island. His mission this seasons seems to be of detachment... first from guilt (of Boone's death and the hatch), then from the losties, then from the Others, and finally from his father (master in a way), the man who controlled his life.

His philosphy of living off the island without any comforts is more Buddhist to me than anything. If he is granted with food and water, than that is all he needs. Just a bowl and nothing more.

He's only interested in Ben because of the knowledge he has about the island, not because of who he is... so once he gets the information that he needs, he'll complete his journey and be an enlightened being. This is just my interpretation of how he sees his own arc...

I get more of a Buddhist sensibility from Locke. He's at a point of reaching spiritual emptiness and then he will attain enlightment through the island. His mission this seasons seems to be of detachment... first from guilt (of Boone's death and the hatch), then from the losties, then from the Others, and finally from his father (master in a way), the man who controlled his life.

His philosphy of living off the island without any comforts is more Buddhist to me than anything. If he is granted with food and water, than that is all he needs. Just a bowl and nothing more.

He's only interested in Ben because of the knowledge he has about the island, not because of who he is... so once he gets the information that he needs, he'll complete his journey and be an enlightened being. This is just my interpretation of how he sees his own arc...

Oh, I don't disagree at all. I think you have very good points--glad to see them.

In some respects, Nietzsche's perspective shares similar features with that of buddhism or hinduism...I find his beyond good and evil to be akin in some ways to the dharma of nonattachment (that is what dharma is, nonattachment). And then of course there's the eternal recurrence...

Great thread here folks. :)