Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Demerits of existentialism
Essay questions on existentialism
Essay questions on existentialism
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Demerits of existentialism
Since long before Plato philosophers have attempted to accurately describe the ways human being exist in relation to the world around them. Many different systems and meta-narratives were created by numerous philosophers as they used reason to determine what it meant to exist and how knowledge was possible. Most philosophers were acutely aware their philosophical arguments that provided either metaphysical or epistemological descriptive claims would necessarily lay the foundation for normative ethical positions. Peoples accepted metaphysical and epistemological philosophical positions implicitly affect the type and strength of ethical arguments. It especially becomes ethically problematic if one embraces the existentialist understanding of existence and attempts to provide normative guidance or establish a sound moral argument. In particular the combination of Friedrich Nietzsche’s ethical, metaphysical, and epistemological beliefs become highly problematic when attempting to apply them to an ethical framework which would provide normative claims. Therefore, if one were to accept Nietzsche’s existential philosophical descriptive claims, it is impossible to establish a functioning ethical system that would not lead to catastrophic social, economic, environmental, and political problems.
Although it is likely Nietzsche would argue that his claims concerning reason, knowledge, and morality were merely descriptive truth claims which accurately portrayed the world the only way we could accurately understand it, it opens the door for human actions which have ethical repercussions. Even Nietzsche’s normative claims concerning a healthy will to power fail to adequately address any ethical problems inherent in his ideas. However, it wou...
... middle of paper ...
...f-affirmation. However, this would create a world in which the concerns of suffering, justice, and personal freedoms were an afterthought, and it is hard to see how civilization could flourish in any modern conception of the idea. While these moral ideas may be empty creations to Nietzsche, they often times allow the condition for the possibility of happiness and self-affirmation.
A final problem with Nietzsche’s views in their application is they treat the individual as a completely autonomous being driven by only a “will to power”. This idea seems to run contrary to the very conditions which make life possible. People are not created as autonomous beings from conception. Existential existence is only possible through the assistance of other individuals, and any ethical system, even if it is only an implied ethical system, which ignores others is deeply flawed.
We have grown weary of man. Nietzsche wants something better, to believe in human ability once again. Nietzsche’s weariness is based almost entirely in the culmination of ressentiment, the dissolution of Nietzsche’s concept of morality and the prevailing priestly morality. Nietzsche wants to move beyond simple concepts of good and evil, abandon the assessment of individuals through ressentiment, and restore men to their former wonderful ability.
However, Nietzsche’s idea of the powerful forcing their will on common people resonates with me. It is something we see in our modern society, wealthy people seem to have a higher influence over the average American. Examples of powerful people controlling others are found in politics, economy, media, and religion. Common people are lead to think in certain ways that the powerful need them to. Nietzsche said that people will only be equal as long as they are equal in force and talent, people who have a higher social group are more influential in decisions because average people look to them for information. The thing I do not agree with Nietzsche on his view as Christianity as a weakness because religion is a main cause of people’s decision
Friedrich Nietzsche was a brilliant and outspoken man who uses ideas of what he believe in what life is about. He did not believe in what is right and wrong because if who opposed the power. Nietzsche was against Democracy because how they depend on other people to make some different or change, while Nietzsche believe they should of just pick the ones that were gifted and talent to choose what to change. Nietzsche also does not believe in Aristocracy because how they depend on an individual person to create the rules or change those benefits for him. As you see Nietzsche did not like how they depend on one person to decide instead of each person to decide for himself for their own benefits.
“On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” is an unfinished work written by Friedrich Nietzsche in 1873. In this work, Nietzsche takes an approach to explaining the truth in a way that we would all find very unusual, but that is merely the Nietzsche way. In this essay I will analyze how Nietzsche views the truth, as explained in “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense”
The first-rate admirable people follow a master morality emphasizing power, strength, egoism, and freedom. While slave morality focuses on weakness, submission, love, and sympathy. For Nietzsche, the Will to Power is the distinguished as the dominant principle of biological function, without the Will to Power abusing the weaknesses of everyone being equal, with that society cannot and will not develop. The Will to Power is also defined as the Will to Life.
God may well be dead but Nietzsche’s assessment of the pitfalls of our new arbiter of value provides a staunch critique against which we must measure our morality. The question though remains as to whether we can ever accept a plurality of values within a given polity, whilst it may solve the philosophical problem of linking categories such as ‘Truth’ and ‘Purity’ can any aggregation of humans ever produce an agreement that is anything but slavish or self interested or vain or resigned or gloomily enthusiastic or an act of despair or each individually? God may well be dead but Nietzsche is right when he says that his shadow remains over us and, for the moment, there seems no way we can cast our own light on that shadow and overcome his legacy.
While critical of the attitude found in the ressentiment of slave morality, Nietzsche’s includes it as an important factor contributing to the bad conscience of man. Even though Nietzsche dislikes the negative results of bad conscience – man’s suppression of his instincts, hate for himself, and stagnation of his will -- Nietzsche does value it for the promise it holds. Nietzsche foresees a time coming when man conquers his inner battle and regains his “instinct of freedom.” In anticipation of that day’s eventual arrival, Nietzsche views the development of bad conscience as a necessary step in man’s transformation into the “sovereign individual.”
Leiter, Brian. “Nietzsche’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 26 August 2004.
Friedrich Nietzsche is a German philosopher who lived in 1844 to 1900, and his proposition on eternal recurrence was one of his most discussed works. The concept states that the world is eternally self – destroying, then self – creating, over time. He radicalizes the Christian concept of eternity and combines it with simple reasoning to come up with an innovative concept. This paper will discuss in detail what eternal recurrence is and the implications of such a concept on free spirits, and whether adopting such a belief will make a person’s life better or not. The paper will then proceed to offer a response to criticism on Nietzsche’s proposition. The text to be used is the second edition of ‘Existentialism: Basic Writings’ by Charles Guignon and Derk Pereboom. This book offers good rudimentary synopsis of the four major proponents of existentialism: Nietzsche, Heidegger, Sartre, and Kierkegaard, with excerpts from Husserl and Hegel aimed at giving a better explanation on the origin of existentialism. The author offers a simplified explanation on the various philosophical concepts by the philosophers mentioned above, making it easier to understand than would have been possible if one was reading the original works. The specific area of interest from the book is the area that covers Nietzsche’s Gay Science, as it offers insight on his concept of eternal recurrence.
“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.
Primeval man acquired the faculty of memory, according to Nietzsche, in response to his sudden enslavement at the hands of a master race (2.17). These masters set as their task the imposition of a few general rules of civilized existence (otherwise known as the morality of mores) upon their subjects, who had been “slaves of momentary affect and desire” (2.3) before their enslavement. This project, according to Nietzsche, necessitated the searing of these basic rules into the minds of the populace by means of immensely cruel acts and resulted in t...
Nietzsche believed we create the self through our experiences and our actions, and in order to be a complete self, we must accept everything we have done. I agree with him in this sense. Although it is easy to learn from the mistakes of others, there is no greater lesson than learning from our own mistakes. He also believed there is much more to the self than we know about. This is another example about how we learn about ourselves through our experiences and actions.
The system of justice that Nietzsche employs although somewhat cynical has a substantial amount of merit as a form of justice, which is present in our society. This is demonstrated through the depiction of the creditor/debtor relationship that exists in our democratic societies, and the equalization process that occurs, and furthermore that Nietzsche is correct to assess justice as such a principle. The issue is most obvious in the penal system; however it is also prevalent in personal day-to-day relationships as well as political structures.
Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals can be assessed in regards to the three essays that it is broken up into. Each essay derives the significance of our moral concepts by observing