In the nineteenth century, popular philosophy - particularly the Hegelian dialectic - professed that mankind was developing in an upward direction, becoming more angelic as it were. Man's moral laws were more advanced, as support for democracy and equal rights were beginning to become popular. However, Friedrich Nietzsche believed that mankind was entering a downward spiral towards complete decadence. Modern man, with its 'advanced' morality, was, in truth, decaying on the inside. Claims of morality merely masked modern man's decay:
he is veiled behind moral formulas and concepts of decency?. [not] to mask human malice and villainy?. [but] it is precisely as tame animals that we are a shameful sight?. The European disguises himself with morality because he has become a sick, sickly, crippled animal that has good reasons for being ?tame?. [GS 352]
Nietzsche believed this to be a form of nihilism because mankind valued precisely what was halting his advancement. With this in mind, Nietzsche began his bold movement towards the revaluation of all values.
We need a critique of moral values, the value of these values should itself, for once, be examined?. [What if] morality itself were to blame if man, as a species, never reached his highest potential power and splendour? [GM P 6]
In this essay I will first look at several reasons for the necessity of a revaluation of all values. Then I shall look at Nietzsche?s conception of the ?noble? and how through egoism, they can undertake the revaluation of all values.
Nietzsche?s most famous statement is, without a doubt, that ?God is dead? (GS 108/125, Z P 2, etc.). Through many years of being quoted, contemporary society seems to have lost the significance of such a profound statement. Perhaps the most frightening aspect of this statement is that ?we have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers? (GS 125). It is important to remember that Nietzsche did not believe this to be a literal event. Instead, he explains ?that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable? (GS 343). Such disbelief has begun to cast morality, indeed mankind?s meaning, into doubt. Without God, how can universal moral truths be justified? Where is the meaning of man?
What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plung...
... middle of paper ...
...ss that of all, all! [GS 335]
Nietzsche believed that the ego is very important for the revaluation of values. It provides a person with the proper attitude to look within himself and determine those values that are in accordance with personal well-being. The ego also gives the person the conviction to act upon them.
In the end, Nietzsche began to perceive that his ?wicked thoughts? on the revaluation of all values were themselves becoming eternal truths: ?you have already taken off your novelty, and some of you are ready, I fear, to become truths: they already look so immortal, so pathetically decent, so dull!? (BGE 296) Nietzsche implies that his views on issues might not be correct, such as when he claims ?assuming that it is now known at the outset how very much these are after all only - my truths? (BGE 231) before beginning a sad tirade on women. The danger of stating a method of creating truth that is indefinite is that certain aspects will be cast into truths in the future, much against the spirit of Nietzsche. While his elitist views might seem extreme, perhaps he is only offering his truth to creating meaning, and it is our individual duty to come up with our own.
In the Second Essay of On the Genealogy of Morals (titled ““Guilt,” “Bad Conscience,” and the Like”), Nietzsche formulates an interesting conception of the origin and function of guilt feelings and “bad conscience.” Nietzsche’s discussion of this topic is rather sophisticated and includes sub-arguments for the ancient equivalence of the concepts of debt and guilt and the existence of an instinctive joy in cruelty in human beings, as well as a hypothesis concerning the origin of civilization, a critique of Christianity, and a comparison of Christianity to ancient Greek religion. In this essay, I will attempt to distill these arguments to their essential points.
...o die, everything is growing farther and farther apart toward a state of decay; and as it goes, so goes hope, so goes man’s faith in what he can see, think, and reason. This is the hard reality that becomes apparent; if ethical action is limited to man’s thought about morals and principles that are, according to man, “absolute”, then man may be the most arrogant and ignorant of God’s creation.
This piece of work will try to find the answer to the question ‘In Nietzsche’s first essay in the Genealogy of Morals, does he give a clear idea of what good and bad truly are and what his opinion of those ideas is’. It will give a brief overview of his first essay, it will also go into greater detail of what he claims good and bad truly are, and finally look at what he is trying to prove with this argument. It will look at his background in order to see if and how that has influenced his work and opinions.
In philosophy “Nihilism” is a position of radical skepticism. It is the belief that all values are baseless and nothing is known. The word “Nihilism” itself conveys a sense of abolishing or destroying (IEP). Nietzsche’s work and writings are mostly associated with nihilism in general, and moral nihilism especially. Moral nihilism questions the reality and the foundation of moral values. Nietzsche supported his view on morality by many arguments and discussions on the true nature of our inner self. Through my paper on Moral Nihilism, I will explain 5 major arguments and then try to construct a deductive argument for each, relying on Nietzsche’s book II “Daybreak”.
...d of a Buddhist koan, which is intended to break the hold of logic on the mind. However, rather than breaking the hold of logic on the mind, Nietzsche, with his jibing remarks, swashbuckling writing style, self-contradictions, and secrecy, is intending to break the hold of socially determined "masks," or Isms, from the perceptions of the new philosopher who will arise the day after tomorrow. Nietzsche shows us how to philosophize without Isms. The only question remaining is whether we are strong enough to take his advice.
“Has he got lost? Did he lose his way like a child? Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Emigrated?” No the madman says; “we have killed him – you and I. All of us are his murderers” This exchange encapsulates the aphorism that underpins much of Nietzsche’s thought; that “God is dead”. But what does this mean - What is Nietzsche telling us by claiming that we have murdered God? This essay is going to attempt to try and understand what Nietzsche argues has changed and what hasn’t with the death of God and to examine his critique of 19th century morality in the context of the 21st century politics and see if he offers a constructive alternative to the way we engage in political discourse.
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.
Friedrich Nietzsche is recognized for being one of the most influential German philosophers of the modern era. He is known for his works on genealogy of morality, which is a way to study values and concepts. In Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche mentions that values and concepts have a history because of the many different meanings that come with it. Nietzsche focused on traditional ethical theories, especially those rooted in religion. Not being a religious man, he believed that human life has no moral purpose except for the significance that human beings give it. People from different backgrounds and circumstances in history bend morality's meaning, making it cater to the norms of their society. For example, the concept of what is "good" in the ancient Greek culture meant aristocratic, noble, powerful, wealthy, pure, but not in modern era. Meaning, in the past the term “good” was not applied to a kind of act that someone did but rather applied to the kind of person and background they had. Nietzsche’s project was to help expand one’s understanding by re-examining morality through genealogy of morality; helping one to be more aware of a potential confusion in moral thinking. He feels that the current values and concepts that have been instilled into a society are a reversal of the truth, forcing him to believe that one’s moral systems had to have been created within society. In the works of genealogy of morality, Nietzsche traces out the origins of the concepts of guilt and bad conscience, which will be the main focal point, and explaining its role in Nietzsche’s project against morality. It will be argued that guilt and bad conscience goes against Nietzsche’s role against morality because it can conflict with the moral co...
“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.
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
All of Friedrich Nietzsche quotes were made before the age of 44. For the last 11 years of his life, he had no use of his mental capabilities. While many of Friedrich Nietzsche quotes were focused on religion, or the fallacy of it, it would be interesting to see what he would have written about later in his life and if his opinion would have changed. Although, the statement 'God is dead' did come from him, so there would likely have been no change in how he viewed religion. Many of his quotes are focused on human behavior and existence, and following are some that moved me.
Friedrich Nietzsche was a critic and a German Philosopher from the 18th century. Nietzsche was the father of psychoanalysis and he formulated several philosophical concepts that have greatly contributed to the understanding of human nature. Nietzsche ideas had been misinterpreted by many people over time specifically, due to his style of writing. Nietzsche style of writing was adopted to strengthen his arguments on various controversial topics. In this paper, I will discuss Nietzsche’s idea of naturalistic morality, master morality, self-mastery morality, and how they connect with the affirmation of nature and strength.
Frederich Nietzsche, philosopher and former Lutheran minister, argued that religion is founded on a general principle of “Do this and that, refrain from this and that – then you will be happy!” (para. 15) which in turn creates a common loss of individual thought among the followers of a religious group, primarily Christianity. Nietzsche’s philosophical views were greatly influenced by the ideals of Ralph Waldo Emerson who, similar to Nietzsche, had formally been a minister and believed in the ideals of individualism. Nietzsche clearly argues within his essay “Morality as Anti-Nature” against religious affiliation, and believed that it was being used as a form of control by using a roster of ideals of right and wrong, which he defines as the “Christian morals.” He believed that Christianity “emphasizes the wrong values for mankind, preferring
“God is dead. God remains dead, and we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become Gods simply to appear worthy of it?” (2). This quote was said by one of the greatest philosophers to have lived; Friedrich Nietzsche. Although Friedrich Nietzsche is not as well known as some of the philosophers that we’ve discussed in class; such as Plato, Descartes, or Socrates, he and his ideas have influenced the views of modern philosophy today. Friedrich Nietzsche is a german philosopher that was born October 15, 1844 and died at the ago of 55 on August 25th, 1900. Although Friedrich Nietzsche died at a fairly young age it doesn't mean that he didn't leave us with anything to remember him by. A few of his greatest works were; “The Will to Power, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, Antichrist and, The Gay Science” (6). The last of which I will be talking about in this essay because it contains Nietzsche’s; “God is Dead” pronouncement, which is what this paper will pertain to.
Nietzsche evaluates the world in terms of how it really is. He recognizes that people are inherently different and frames his philosophy accordingly. This, his philosophical paradigm is superior in terms of its realism. Furthering that argument, Nietzsche also shows that he wants to preserve societal advancement. Nietzsche was primarily concerned what society would stagnate if we settled for mediocrity. While his philosophy may be somewhat elitist, it mandates societal advancement because it allows the elites to rise to the top and push society forward. There is link to Christianity. Societies cannot push forward with this notion of God. Christianity, with its conception of transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient and a just God, denies and negates too much that is valuable in this world. There was a direct link to Christianity and how there was a real manifestation of the will to power and that certain individuals have revealed themselves. He accounts for his own ethics. Nietzsche accounts for all people in society and provides all people the equal opportunity to maximize their own power. While power differences are inevitable based upon individual differences, all people have the same opportunity to Will to Power. This creates the basis of his ethics as