Many claim that Friedrich Nietzsche was an ‘articulate man who had lost his grip on reality’. However we already know that all philosophers have received some form of criticism throughout their careers. Even Socrates was tried on two charges; with corrupting the youth and impiety. It seems as though one cannot think for oneself and broaden one’s vision of the universe without stirring a little controversy. I feel that one cannot truly have knowledge of something without considering every ethical position and outlook. For as we begin to think on the ‘why’ of the decisions we make, we’re able to form more concrete resolutions to the situations we’re placed in. I feel this is important, as Nietzsche believed contrary to many philosophers in his day, even some of the greatest philosophers of all time in Plato and Socrates.
Nietzsche’s primary understanding of the life of Socrates was as the death of life. Socrates embodied the reason, virtue, and happiness, who believed in the vanity of life. He was known to walk around, living in a state of poverty, and question the moral beliefs and ethical decisions of those around him. Nietzsche believes that Socrates and Plato were the ‘symptoms of decline’ for life, for the reason that life was a sickness, and it progressed as more reason revealed the sickness many covered. What then is the value of life? Nietzsche responds that it is a paradox: ‘For a philosopher to see a problem in the value of life is almost an objection against himself, a note of interrogation set against his wisdom—a lack of wisdom.’
This, being said simply, is Nietzsche encouraging the enjoyment of life and pleasure. To focus more on this life we are currently living, and not give in to the sickness that dep...
... middle of paper ...
...if we are able to see it in others - or even worse, in ourselves. As I reflect on my own Christian beliefs and my own behavior, I see that Nietzsche is challenging my morals and beliefs. First, with the very fact I’m Christian and believe in God is directly contradictory to his ideals. With that comes my desire to live a moral life and pattern this life after Jesus Christ, as well as a belief in an afterlife. All such things have been touched on previously as being considered foolish by the ‘Anti-Christ’ and ‘immoralist’. He speaks with great irony concerning the belief of morals and the opinions of those who claim knowledge of the purpose of this life. I believe his influence is still prominent in those who choose to carefully examine and consider his work, as well as those who seek greater understanding of the purpose of religion and its role in our lives.
The beauty of Nietzsche’s philosophy lies in his prose. His thought and written word are poetically intellectual. His theologies on morality, the meaning of existence and the individual have influenced philosophers, such as Martin Heidegger, Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault; the founding fathers of psychology, Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud and writers, such as Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, Thomas Mann and Hermann Hesse. Without a doubt he is one of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century, inspiring every field of theology and art.
Matthew’s gospel is a morally sound guideline to being the perfect Christian. Be kind to your neighbors. Help the poor. Be meek and poor for you will inherit the earth. Nietzsche would spit on these “virtues.” He believes that the gospel is the word of the weak and unwanted. The meek will only make a difference if they band together and start a resentiment, which is when the meek revolt and turn against the “noble” or strong. This is the only way that the poor can gain any power in society. In Nietzsche’s eyes religion was the ultimate con on the human race. A few weak men’s ideas spawned a worldwide movement to suppress the strong and noble. This movement will hinder the innate instinct to gain power and be the strongest util man realizes he controls his fate and religion is a fantasy.
Leiter, Brian. “Nietzsche’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 26 August 2004.
“There are no truths,” states one. “Well, if so, then is your statement true?” asks another. This statement and following question go a long way in demonstrating the crucial problem that any investigator of Nietzsche’s conceptions of perspectivism and truth encounters. How can one who believes that one’s conception of truth depends on the perspective from which one writes (as Nietzsche seems to believe) also posit anything resembling a universal truth (as Nietzsche seems to present the will to power, eternal recurrence, and the Übermensch)? Given this idea that there is no truth outside of a perspective, a transcendent truth, how can a philosopher make any claims at all which are valid outside his personal perspective? This is the question that Maudemarie Clark declares Nietzsche commentators from Heidegger and Kaufmann to Derrida and even herself have been trying to answer. The sheer amount of material that has been written and continues to be written on this conundrum demonstrates that this question will not be satisfactorily resolved here, but I will try to show that a resolution can be found. And this resolution need not sacrifice Nietzsche’s idea of perspectivism for finding some “truth” in his philosophy, or vice versa. One, however, ought to look at Nietzsche’s philosophical “truths” not in a metaphysical manner but as, when taken collectively, the best way to live one’s life in the absence of an absolute truth.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense represents a deconstruction of the modern epistemological project. Instead of seeking for truth, he suggests that the ultimate truth is that we have to live without such truth, and without a sense of longing for that truth. This revolutionary work of his is divided into two main sections. The first part deals with the question on what is truth? Here he discusses the implication of language to our acquisition of knowledge. The second part deals with the dual nature of man, i.e. the rational and the intuitive. He establishes that neither rational nor intuitive man is ever successful in their pursuit of knowledge due to our illusion of truth. Therefore, Nietzsche concludes that all we can claim to know are interpretations of truth and not truth itself.
Others still have pity for the poor and needy etc. Nietzsche dislikes religion especially Christianity because it encourages and promotes slave morality. Nietzsche says that we should be striving towards master morality, but Christianity has the completely opposite values to those of the master morality. For example, religion wants us to be like slaves and give things up instead of trying to be great. He talks about a slave revolt in morality, which leads to the dominance of slave values over master values.
Do I agree with Nietzsche in his real world application in today’s standard? His esoteric way of thinking is a bit shocking to say the least, but in certain regards, that we are more divided now in politics than we ever have been. Some of it does have to do with religion and how it is viewed. This is a bit foolish in nature since we should all want the same things in our country. But Nietzsche would argue (along with some others in today’s culture) that the political esoteric and the metaphysical esoteric have been divided. Nietzsche answers a problem when talking about the religious conflicts that ruled the land and perhaps even endangered societies. The issue was not the idea of religion in itself, but rather it was a problem that there
Furthermore, he was profoundly anti-life, so much that “he wanted to die”. Before Socrates died he stated that he has "been sick for a long time" and Nietzsche argues “For a philosopher to see a problem in the value of life, is almost an objection against himself, a note of interrogation set against his wisdom—a lack of wisdom”. Nietzsche blamed the spreading of this attitude for the rise of Christianity, romanticism and Kant's philosophy. Nietzsche was a unique philosopher; he looked down upon anyone or anything that takes significance away from the earth, and places it in a fictional realm of
But I believe this is a misuse of the word. As a defender of earthly life and humanity, it is understandable that Nietzsche would despise pessimism, yet Socrates' behavior, as far as I see it, does not qualify to be characterized as one. The dictionary definition of pessimism is "a tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen; a lack of hope or confidence in the future." Yet what is less pessimist than to believe there is life even beyond what human beings believe to be the worst that can happen to oneself, death? Nietzsche says this about Socrates: "He had merely kept a cheerful mien while concealing all his life long his ultimate judgment, his inmost feeling. " But Socrates never concealed his inmost feeling about the body or the soul. This statement, thus, loses merit in that regard. Nietzsche's claim is that Socrates fell his own standard in the face of death, but it seems like Nietzsche is targeting not at that last words as they were no secret. Socrates clearly presents his belief that life is a "practice for dying and death ". He believes death is a liberation from the imprisonment of the
The frustration of this urge, Nietzsche saw, is responsible for the existence of various moral systems and religious institutions. Nietzsche was particularly hostile to Christianity, which he famously calls a “slave morality”. In it he saw the resentment of the weak towards the strong.
There is an equilibrium of the unhistorical and historical, of forgetting and remembering that, like Greek tragedy, affirms life7. In The Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life, he gives an account of the historical circumstances of the epoch in which he is living that have lead to the disruption of this equilibrium. Nietzsche finds modern life to have pushed the historical mode of living found in man past its natural limits until it ceases to be a life affirming method of coping with existence—‘it was’ becomes such an immense weight upon us that it crushes us rendering us “fragments and limbs of man,” as Zarathustra
All thoughts, morals, situations, are hypothesises of the present person, concepts of willpower, that will be assessed to the degree that they do or do not aid the values of life and sturdy individualism. Nietzsche also believes that there is only interpretations that are organised by the person interpreting’s perspectives, that is then loaded with limits, prejudices, and assumptions. He also said that there are thus no facts (Nietzsche,
Humans used language to construct this image of God, an unknowable being, in an attempt to relate to Him. In fact, in their effort to try to hold on to and create God, Christians have unknowingly created an idol, instead of worshipping the true metaphysical God. Because of this internal, universal need to create a God, Christianity is “always beset by the temptation to be satisfied with its static gazes at God rather than the active life that discipleship” (Hovey, 142). All thought, knowledge, and experience is temporary, so Nietzsche’s bold declaration was presented as an invitation for individuals to reevaluate their lives and find new meaning in them. Through the process of self-examination, humans are able to free themselves from the convictions of modern society and create new meaning.
This is why he claims that the “Church is hostile to life”. Nietzsche also claims that although some of our passions are stupid, to attempt to destroy them is not only unfruitful, but also “an acute form of stupidity” (p.1234). Desires
Nietzsche is often considered a nihilist and a contributor to the rise of Nazism in German youth. Living in pre-war Germany, Nietzsche’s goal for nihilism was to prevent the emergence of the last man by encouraging men to be creators. But this had given too wide a range of possibilities, there was no guidance towards what nihilists should be creating. Strauss, who discusses nihilism during and after World War I, shows how much of an influence Nietzsche had on the young Germans. There are many parallels that can be made between these philosophers on the subject, such as: “‘Nihilism’, they would say, is a slogan used by those who do not understand the new, who see merely the rejection of their cherished ideals…”