i am of the view that the attachment theory is utterly false. Even as it has attracted a lot of earnest and high quality people, as a theory it is empty, and based on pure supposition.

The reason why it seems, or feels “true” to us is our Judeo-Christian cultural conditioning. We somehow find it logical and normative that “the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons [and daughters]”. But this is to weave a mythology and claim that it is science. Moreover, it puts things on the wrong footing, correcting the errors —in fact the “emotional sins” — of the past, that are alleged to have done us so much harm. This is all a form of devious mysticism.

What is true is that the present does us harm much more than the past does, but we are encouraged to avert our eyes, or rather drop them to the level of our belly button, and contemplate deeply. The system of Judeo-Christian mores is extremely anti-realist, and against acknowledging the fact that life is based on will to power. This is as Nietzsche described — Judeo Christian systems involve a slave revolt in morals, which maintains that the world is saved through “morality”, rather than through practical and effective engagement.

Let us add a bit more to this thesis. I have found that contemporary modern individuals are highly prone to have the “attachment” flaws that result in borderline personality disorder and narcissism. And yet a firm social system, that did not allow the expression of these characteristics would keep these aspects in check. I will also say that I have lived in a society that imposed such sufficient pressure on people that there pathological aspects were kept at bay. They focused on the reality of the situation — actually politics and winning a war. It was only when that specific social and political pressure was removed, and they were left twiddling their thumbs, that the underlying weaknesses found room for expression.

The point here is that if we were to stop valorizing nature, a la Rousseau, and stop iterating a religious pattern and creed, we would find a whole level of complexity that involved influences coming from very different directions that from our parents. We lack imagination, though, and we are susceptible to mystical explanations that however feel familiar. And we also implicitly seem to feel that groveling in the dirt and doing penance for the “sin of the fathers” will reap a just reward. The slave revolt in morals — as Nietzsche said.

The kind of morality he was talking about is formal morality of any sort. It involves an over-thinking of our behaviors, a rationalist reduction of actions into categories of right and wrong. The problem here is has to do with over-thinking. Nietzsche’s claim that imposing systems of morality is destructive is very closely aligned to his view that “consciousness” itself is a disease in humans.

In place of morality, Nietzsche puts the image of sacrifice, which is not driven by imperatives but by instinct. That which is of a higher human order sacrifices itself for the sake of actualizing its potential. Whatever cost is required to reach its highest potential is paid in full. For example a philosophically gifted person, like Nietzsche, might live in a cold room, in isolation and alienation, just so that he could continue to write his works. I believe he also had blinding head-aches, among other health issues.

The rarely understood motif that Nietzsche employs for this sort of higher sacrifice is the idea of a simultaneous movement: “To ‘go over’ is to ‘go under’.” This means that when you go beyond conventional morality and start to actualize yourself, you also committing to self-sacrifice. You might end up suffering, for your achievement, or even dying for it.

The opposite point of view to this self-sacrificial modality is taken by the moralists. In terms of Nietzsche’s critique, morality provides a means for self-preservation, and it is this that it prioritizes above all else. Morality, as such, minimizes danger and enables people to live longer lives. At the same time, because it minimizes the exposure to danger, (which it labels, “evil”), it also makes people very drab and insipid.

It’s partly related to a conceptual confusion, due to underthinking philosophical of ideological concepts. In fact if someone is genuinely emotionally weak and sensitive, then society and us can have no use for them. Another word for these characteristics and their behavioral correlate is “cowardice”.

But there are those who are intellectuals, or other kinds of nonconformists, and these, by force of cultural habit, are often dismissed as “emotionally weak and sensitive”. This is actually false — a slur — but it is a really useful fiction for the majority, as it enables them to feel that they are the most robust and normal expressions of the human race, and everybody else is inferior.

As a matter of self esteem, average of “normal” people may also pander to those who are genuinely weaker than they are. This also reinforces their view that they are strong and stable.

In addition, Judeo-Christian morality, which has been with us for more than a thousand years, makes an ideological and preference for those who are weak, as it is assumed that they will be more moral and capable of goodness than those who are strong.