Luxury Beliefs: Zarathustra's Withdrawal
Navigating today's monoculture while upholding personally beneficial standards
Imagine Zarathustra in the modern age, ready to teach townspeople about transcending to the Übermensch. Before he can begin, he glances at his smartphone and confronts the harsh realities of today's society. To speak against the prevailing public monoculture of the Last Men1 no longer just subjects him to mockery but also poses genuine risks, including accusations of extremism, job losses, social ostracism, and even physical attacks. The stakes of dissent have escalated from ridicule to retaliation.2
Realizing the potential consequences, Zarathustra recoils.3 The effort to enlighten others about achieving greatness now seems futile.
In the digital age, identity is increasingly shaped not through direct interactions but by the curated personas we present online. Social media profiles are crafted to resonate with the expectations of a vast, faceless audience. This phenomenon is driven by second-order observation—individuals continuously speculate about how others perceive others perceiving them through the lens of their digital presence. The result is a homogenized culture where deviation from the norm is discouraged, leading to an endless replication of the same approved ideas.
In this environment, Zarathustra adapts. Instead of challenging the public monoculture, he affirms it on social media: proclaiming that "Obesity is good, eat what you like; use any drug whenever you want" and other detrimental lifestyle choices. At the same time, he privately adheres to rigorous diets and exercise, aware that harder choices foster mental and physical sharpness.
Modern technology allows him to avoid conflict while pursuing what he truly believes to be superior.
The silent consensus among the knowing few represents a path of least resistance, a withdrawal from the effort to elevate societal standards. Historically, elites might have felt a duty to uplift the less fortunate, but in a society increasingly polarized and intolerant of diverse viewpoints, such endeavors become prohibitively costly and unrewarding.
In essence, Zarathustra's decision to stay on the mountain and refrain from engaging with the public monoculture reflects a broader retreat among elites. They choose personal comfort and safety over the potential turmoil of confronting or transforming widely held but detrimental viewpoints.
Thus, luxury beliefs4 have evolved into a technologically supported strategy for navigating today's polarized social landscape, enabling elites to align publicly with mainstream culture while privately upholding standards they consider superior in their personal lives. Being able to endorse and reaffirm the worldview of the Last Men has become a status symbol because only a tiny minority can afford to hold these detrimental beliefs while proliferating doing so.
Of course, this contributes to societal decay as a whole, since those who truly know better opt to publicly endorse the opposite of what they consider beneficial.
I highly recommend reading the following books if you want to explore the topics of this essay further:
Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
On the Genealogy of Morality by Friedrich Nietzsche
You and Your Profile: Identity After Authenticity by Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul J. D'Ambrosio
Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class by Rob Henderson
Nietzsche’s Last Man is the archetypal passive nihilist. He is tired of life, takes no risks, and seeks only comfort and security.
Of course, in certain ages or societies, speech (such as blasphemy) could have literally killed people. Therefore, the worsening of free speech should primarily be viewed in the context of Western democracies.
In reality, neither Nietzsche nor Zarathustra would probably have cared about any social repercussions, no matter how severe. However, for the elites in society, a threshold has been reached due to the excessive polarization of today's internet-based culture.
A luxury belief is an idea or opinion that confers status on members of the upper class at little cost, while inflicting costs on persons in lower classes. The term is often applied to privileged individuals who are seen as disconnected from the lived experiences of impoverished and marginalized people.