Analysis Of Nietzsche's Twilight Of The Idols

Nietzsche was a German philosopher in the late 20th century who had revolutionary ideas in his time. His influence carries on much after his death. Many of his writings created intense reactions both good and bad. In the piece “Twilight of the Idols” Nietzsche gives a harsh criticism of Socrates and the characteristics that define his philosophy. I somewhat agree that Nietzsche’s criticism of Socrates was valid. There are some good points he addresses that are negative aspects of Socrates’s philosophy and there are points where I do not agree with the criticism that Nietzsche gives.

Nietzsche is a firm believer that the philosophy of dialectics that Socrates initiated in Greece created a negative impact on the culture and the philosophy of the time. Socrates loved the logical discussion to probe truths and to discover what they really are. Nietzsche finds that the dialectic discussions are a lower class ploy to be “on top” (problem of Socrates 5) of the nobles. Before Socrates the dialectic manner was a “form of bad manners” (5) creating a sense of mistrust and dishonesty. I agree with Nietzsche on these points because orators and people who have a keen sense of vocabulary can be the most convincing. Lawyers make their money from convincing people of their point and can many times change a person’s beliefs with the play on words they give. Words can be manipulated however anyone desires creating how little the influence they should have. What I do not agree with is the cultural inequality he is depicting. Nietzsche is against Egalitarianism and a social elitist. Yes there are different social classes but that doesn’t mean any one person is greater than another.

Is investigating truths really a negative aspect of society? Does havi...

... middle of paper ...

...e to my own personal beliefs since I am a Christian. In my own opinion I am not threatened by what Nietzsche says. He has some valid points about reason and instinct, however when it comes to Christianity my interpretations are completely different from his. My views and beliefs will not change from reading this text. When he describes the Sermon on the Mount and the “pluck out thine eye if it offends thee” example my views of what to do were very different. He felt like Christianity is trying to suppress instinct by just throwing it away while I thought control thine eye to not look upon other people a certain way. In essence change your perspective instead of not having one. What will change in my mind is how I address my initial reactions or instincts to certain situations. I believe that instincts are good to have but even better to know and to be governed over.