In the Leopold and Loeb criminal case, two youngsters killed a random person for the thrill of it on account of Nietschean philosophy of the super man. The case was made into a movie by Alfred Hitchcock, in which Hitchcock argues that Nietschean philosophy had nothing to do with it, that it just started with evil of the boys.
So I want to talk about our responsibility not to confuse others, or even ourselves with some kind of philosphy.
Hitchcock says that the evil was in the boys in the first place, but on the other hand the Nietschean philosophy says that Hichcock is wrong about that. If Hichcock wanted to argue that Nietschean philosophy had nothing to do with the murder, he should not have explicitly denied Nietschean philosophy, explicitly stated that the evil is in the boys. The boys did not much have the luxury of any ideas outside of Nietsche, which luxury Hitchcock permits himself. Every idea outside of Nietsche, and the teacher hits the boys with criticism, gives them a failed grade, ridicules them.
What is implicit in Hitchcock's ideas is that there are some things that we all know, regardless of any philosophy. Good and evil, hate and love. Supposedly we all know how to handle these concepts appropiately. So since we all know, there can be no confusion on account of Nietschean philosophy, and no guilt on the part of the teacher of confusing the boys.
But what then is it that we supposedly all know, by which we can say that the evil is in the boys? What we all know is the logic of choosing, since we use this logic all the time in daily life. We know the boys had a choice between killing and not killing, and we know that their spirit decided the matter.
Now the question is can we confuse ourselves or anybody to the point that we don't know this anymore?
I don't think so, because the logic of choosing is so deeply engrained in our understanding of anything, that we can't unknow it. But unlike what Hitchcock says this rather proves the guilt of the teacher. Because if the knowledge is so inherent, then the knowledge is part of themselves, and if it is part of themselves, then attacking the knowledge would cause them pain.
So what happened with the boys and their teacher was that they tried to destroy the logic of choosing which is inherent in them, this caused them pain, the pain enflamed a hatered, and the random choice of victim is them trying to place this knowledge of the logic of choosing outside themselves, and then to destroy it.
™ Version 4.2