Creative destruction is a term expressed by Nietzsche and others, that destruction and chaos can give birth to new things.
That's a given; however,
what is born may or may not be a good thing. It really depends. For example, since 'creative destruction' is also used in economics, some say firing people (look at 'fire') may be destructive yet creative, to keep a company to sustain itself, or go in some new direction.
Fire. "You're fired." Being 'laid off' sounds better, but its a similar premise. There is at least some decency in being laid off. You still get a good reference, go on to new and good things. Being 'fired' however, can make yourself less marketable in the workplace. If you'd been fired and deserved it, especially. If you didnt deserve it, still it could marr someone from getting a job.
So creative destruction, in spirituality, Nietzsche said:
“Thou must burn in thine own fire—how canst thou become new if though hast not first become ash? Lonely one—thou goest the path of lovers: though lovest thyself and therefore thou scornest thyself as lovers scorn. The lover creates, because he despises! What does he know of love who has not had to despise that which he loves!”Nietzsche has always been fascinating to myself, because in all of his eccentricities, he would say things which would make sense. The sad thing is when people try to twist and wring Nietzsche in negative ways, like with communism and so forth. Niezsche loathed human violence like any other, or ignorance, which surely he saw as violent. Thats part of what he did when he went mad, that story, what tipped him over the edge.
But creative destruction -- it really depends what is being destroyed. My personal opinion on it, is man does a lousy job in 'deciding' what is worth destroying. Human life, for example - that should not ever be a 'last resort' that should be a flat out 'no.' We condone it in one realm, then another and another is 'allowed' and condoned. Course I find exceptions such as those who are in pain and want to be free, or do an assisted suicide. Isnt it totally insane, that we, a 'moral society,' have laws to prevent, an individual who is in pain and agony, from taking their own life, in an assisted suicide by a doctor, yet we will send men and women to war, and they will kill for their 'country?' In both cases, pain is condoned, suffering is condoned, but death may not be so. We dont wish to lose our so-called 'moral backbone' because somehow, God wouldnt like it if society condoned those in pain to assist-suicide themselves, but God, condones war and destruction? Who in the hell are we fooling?
So man doesnt do very well in choosing what it may destroy, or not destroy, to give birth to something new. We go to war to destroy "terrorism" and give birth to "democracy." Is it really democratic though, to impose democracy as it were? While certainly terrorism is a nasty virus in itself, and plenty destructive, we go to destroy destroyers to give birth to democracy and freedom. This only shows me the insanity though. I come to the conclusion, mankind has yet to learn how to live together. Therefore this 'creative destruction' is seen as necessary on the globe. But its a forced and not natural creative destruction. Lives are lost, and flesh and bones of others gives way to build something supposedly 'new.'
But the alchemist knows that creative destruction has a ring of truth. Fire can be appealing and seductive - but what if, fire is just that, fire? And destruction = death and there is no guarantee of anything else but, the chaos, and all comes to an end. Do fools rush in where angels fear to tread? Maybe burning bushes should be best avoided. Especially when oddly they don't burn up the bush.
Seems like there should be a gentler and kinder way for changes to take place, other than 'creative destruction,' than firings. its a guarantee of change, but how can we know, if that creative destruction is worth it. Or like the chaotes say, 'fake it til you make it?'
Thus spake me.
