“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.
When Nietzsche claims that
…show more content…
“Modern pessimism is an expression of the uselessness of the modern world--not of the world of existence.” he argues. This means that pessimism isn’t the result of some objective truth about the world but about the world that we have created for ourselves. What Nietzsche offers us isn’t a substance of ‘Truth’, in fact that is specifically what he is avoiding and so often he is charged with nihilism and obliterating modernity without offering anything to replace it. In reality what he offers us is a method by which we can assert ourselves in a world where ‘Truth’ and morality and identity are contingent and changing and are routed in ourselves rather than in science. After he claims that we have killed god he implies we must become Gods ourselves for doing such a deed and this is precisely what he hopes – that we take the place of God and become the arbiter of our own …show more content…
This is Nietzsche at his most constructive, he is arguing for one to engage with one’s own ego and to shape and create one’s own identity. In a letter he urges us to "live above ourselves in order that we may be able to live with ourselves." . His concern is that we end up as one of the ‘herd’ he mocks so derisively where our values all congregate through sloth or slavishness or self
In Frederick Nietzsche’s The Death of God, his madman cries, “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?”(The Madman) To Nietzsche, the phrase "God is dead" is not to be take literally in the sense that he believed in an actual God who existed and then died. Rather, he is implying that the Christian God is no longer the go to for absolute moral principles. In a way, Nietzsche’s The Death of God is explaining that because people are starting to no longer believe in god, their morality isn't tied up in the idea of some imaginary being. It seems that Nietzsche's intended purpose was to do away with the traditional idea of “Christian” morality as he believed that because people were evolving to a place where they could create their own morality, God was unnecessary and irrelevant.
Nietzsche’s dramatis personae “…is different than the actor of this drama” (Science 241). The preparatory human being is one who sees the world as Nietzsche does, and so his characterization is Nietzsche, and people who he sees stick out from the rest of society. The preparatory human being is one that is fit for the transition that Nietzsche sees the world around him going through. This is the destruction of the belief in God. Nietzsche proposes that the belief has receded and questions how people will be able to cope with this (Science 181). Mentioned, also, by Nietzsche in The Gay Science is his view that monotheism stifles and directs the individual towards a normative sense of mora...
It is a striking project; comprised of three essays- each with the aim of stripping the reader’s pre-conceptions of morality, and instead offering the reader an account of the true nature of morality. In this essay I will particularly focus upon the first essay of Nietzsche’s On The Genealogy of Morals that, through the use of metaphoric and dramatic language, cites ‘ressentiment’ as the catalyst of our modern day morals. I will primarily outline Nietzsche’s argument (with particular focus upon his metaphor of the workshop in section 12), secondly identify some internal inconsistencies in his argument (looking in particular at his slightly confusing portrayal of ‘masters’ and ‘slaves), and finally attempt to salvage Nietzsche’s argument through a re-evaluation of how to interpret his writing (appealing to Christopher Janaway’s interpretation of the Genealogy of Morals).
Enter here The ear splitting crackle from a whip is heard as a master shouts orders to a slave. This to most people would make them comfortable. The idea of slavery is one that is unsettling to most people. This is because most people feel it is unmoral or morally wrong to own another human being. However Nietzsche would not necessarily believe this because he did believe in a morality that fits all. Ethics and morality are completely objective and cannot be one set of rules for everyone. Ethics and morality that are more strictly defined are for the weak, the strong do not need a set of rules because they can take care of themselves.
Fridreich Nietzsche writes in The Gay Science "God is dead....And we have killed him," (99, Existentialist Philosophy) referr...
Nietzsche begins his discussion of good and moral with an etymological assessment of the designations of “good” coined in various languages. He “found they all led back to the same conceptual transformation—that everywhere ‘noble,’ ‘aristocratic’ in the social sense, is the basic concept from which ‘good’ in the sense of ‘with aristocratic soul,’… developed…” (Nietzsche 909). Instead of looking forward at the achievement for morality, Nietzsche looks backward, trying to find origins and causes of progression. He ultimately comes to the conclusion that strength implies morality, that superiority implies the good man. The powerful nobles, through pathos of difference, construed plebeians and slaves as bad, because of their inferiority in every sense of the word. From this concept of the pathos of difference was born the priestly morality, wherein the nobles were construed in an altogether different and less favorable light.
First of all, from my interpretation of Nietzsche, modern humanity did not invent the idea of God. Rather the God had a functional role from his point of view. There is no doubt that, modern humanity had the idea of God, but in my opinion, this idea was like a heritage to the modern humanity from their ancestors. We should look at the earlier times of the history in order to understand the roots of the invention of God.
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.
Wagner is not however the corruptor. He, in Nietzsche’s eyes sadly has found himself among the common man, indoctrinated by Christianity in the face of meaninglessness. Nietzsche’s portrayal of his former friend then takes on a more sympathetic tone. Wagner, as evident by Nietzsche’s early praise and admiration, is the most shining example of both, our best chance at post-Socratic salvation in art as well as a depiction of the destructive power that the illness of ...
“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.
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?
Passage 108, ‘New battles’, states ‘God is dead; but given the way people are, there may still for millennia be caves in which they show his shadow.’ In this passage, Nietzsche is saying that God is no longer a transcendent thing; that the definition of God has changed within the minds of man into a physical God. Thus, God has become present within the Universe. Although this does not explain how God has died, this is an important argument that lays the foundation for the argument given by the ‘madman’ in passage 125. Despite God’s death, however, Nietzsche says God’s followers, will continue to preach gods existence, perhaps for a very long time.
In “The Madman,” Nietzsche describes a man going into a town, speaking about his beliefs, and being derided for doing so. However, with further analysis of several elements of the story, a deeper meaning behind the passage becomes clear. Nietzsche argues that morals cannot exist without God, and that atheists must therefore reject morality, and choose what is right and wrong for themselves. Nietzsche does this by using the character of the madman as a mouthpiece to express his own ideas. The first element of the parable that must be examined in order to understand the passage is a symbol, God, which represents morality in the story. The second element to be examined is the madman’s belief that humans have killed God. The implications of this
Prior to the establishment of the Abrahamic monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) religious justice was a muddled picture. In the polytheistic religions, gods each had their own interests, which often conflicted with the interests of other gods. “The belief in one god allowed the Abrahamic religions setup a fundamentally different dynamic in ethics; the dichotomous distinction between right and wrong.” (Stark, 2001). Human actions no longer served one god or another’s interests, they were now judged by the embodiment of all that was perfect and sacred; God.