More handpicked essays just for you.
Cause and effect of religious conflict
Cause and effect of religious conflict
Cause and effect of religious conflict
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Cause and effect of religious conflict
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
were multiple religions. Nietzsche creates an idea of a new world order, or a new religion. This religion will rule single-handedly. Therefore, in Nietzsche’s eyes, solving the “multiple” religions problem. I don’t think I do agree with this. The idea of multiple religions is truly magnificent and I don’t believe that disbanding and creating one alleviates all of the issues known in the esoteric metaphysical space. I would say that God is not dead, but rather that multiple Gods are alive and well with all of the religions that we find in our space.
In Beyond Good and Evil 21 Nietzsche argues that an autonomous agent requires being causa sui. The problem with this requirement is that nothing can be causa sui, Nietzsche says that, “the concept of a causa sui is something fundamentally absurd” (BGE 15) and because of this no one can be an autonomous agent. In the following line, Nietzsche asks, “Consequently, the external world is not the work of our organs?” If this is true, that causa sui is absurd and the external world is of our organs, then is it possible that we are autonomous agents or have any sense of agency and responsibility? Nietzsche would say so it seems.
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.
“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.
I still believe that there should be a cutoff point to where one takes what one wants. I don’t want to work, but I have to if I want to buy things such as various metal model planes for my brother who pesters me on a daily basis… Additionally, I still believe in acting confidently in certain areas, but not to the extent Nietzsche seems to argue for. Nietzsche’s truth about acting like an ubermensch definitely clashes with my long standing personal truth of acting in humility, even if I’m “pretty good” in an area. I define humility as putting acknowledging others and not valuing my opinions to an immovable point. Acting in humility has been something I’ve been trying to practice for many years now and has payed off more times than not. While the pay offs have often times not been immediate, they are still there. They are mostly found in the personal connections I have built with friends, teachers, and coaches. Nietzsche’s advocation of the knightly caste definitely clashes with my personal truth of acting humble. This clash is interesting to think of and I’ll definitely need more time to test out Nietzsche’s ubermensch idea but currently Nietzsche hasn’t really affected my longstanding and time tested idea of acting
Friedrich Nietzsche opposed common values, which he believed distracted man from life. During Nietzsche’s period, imperialist nationalism or an increasingly questionable religion provided the only meaning to life. Nietzsche opposed both. He thought the idea of nationalism ridiculous, saying “only there, where the state ceases, does the man who is not superfluous begin….” Nietzsche held “disdain for the average mind, arguing that all ignorance, but especially Christian ignorance, does not result from deprivation as much as mankind's wilful aversion to genuine knowledge.” The religious values which prevented man from living life disgusted Nietzsche: ‘Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind… faith in "another" or "better" life.’ He stated that the Church “has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul." Nietzsche thought the values of nationalism and Christianity defiled everything that could potentially be strong and beautiful, and wanted to free the European culture from its tantalizing grip. Nietzsche further expressed his thoughts towards religion in his novel Thus Spoke Zarathustra:
The phrase "God is dead" does not mean that Nietzsche believed in an actual God who has actually died, but the idea of him is gone in the modern world. Rather, it conveys his view that the Christian God is no longer a credible source of everyone’s daily lives and values. Year by year there are less believers in the Christian faith and I believe that this is what Nietzsche is referring to. Nietzsche recognizes the crisis that the death of God represents for existing moral assumptions. When someone gives up the Christian faith, it does not only affect that person but everyone around them. By breaking one main concept out of Christianity, the faith in God, one breaks the whole. This is why in "The Madman", a passage which primarily addresses the
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.
I know that there is one object on top of another object, even if it
Friedrich Nietzsche and Mahatma Gandhi, two mammoth political figures of their time, attack the current trend of society. Their individual philosophies and concepts suggest a fundamental problem: if civilization is so diseased, can we overcome this state of society and the sickness that plagues the minds of the masses in order to advance? Gandhi and Nietzsche attain to answer the same proposition of sickness within civilization, and although the topic of unrest among both may be dissimilar, they have parallel means of finding a cure to such an illness as the one that plagues society. Nietzsche’s vision of spiritual health correlates directly with Gandhi’s image of industrialism and the self-sufficiency. This correlation prevails by highlighting the apparent sickness that is ubiquitous in both of the novels.
Nietzsche's critique of religion is largely based on his critique of Christianity. Nietzsche says that in modern Europe, people are atheistic, even though they don't realise it. People who say they are religious aren't really and those who say they have moved on haven't actually moved on. Certain people in society retain features of Christianity. For example, socialists still believe in equality in all people.
Friedrich Nietzsche is a 19th century German philosopher who believed that Christianity is against life and promotes weakness in the masses. However, as the 19th century brought scientific and technological progress, he proclaimed that society would become more and more secular as religion was no longer necessary in explaining the fundamentals of the universe. A wave of nihilism would inevitably sweep through society, as science would replace religion, but bring no values to replace those of religion. Christian morality and nihilism both caused the masses to give up on life, but Nietzsche believed that the affirmation of life was the highest state a human could attain. He came up with his concept of the Ubermensch, a superhuman who would be able to love life in a godless, suffering world and make his own values and morality, rising above the herd mentality. However, Nietzsche’s work became closely associated with radical groups such as that of Hitler in the 20th century. Furthermore, many anarchist groups have been drawn to his works. Although critics have denounced Nietzsche’s ideas for fueling radical groups such as the Nazis, his overall concept of the Ubermensch who creates his own morality evidences that Nietzsche was strongly against the herd mentality; thus, his works have simply been taken out of context and abused by those radical groups.
When discussing the concept of politics, many people’s thinking would not immediately jump to the idea of self or the soul, but would rather focus more intensely on the way we treat others, and the importance of small/large/no government systems. While both are of great importance to give thought to, philosophers Frederick Nietzsche and Walt Whitman challenge readers to think more closely about what exactly it means to possess a mentality of the self, and to examine the way it plays out in our everyday lives. Both authors are accredited with being highly influential thinkers on individualistic philosophy and concepts that are still studied today. While Whitman didn’t necessarily encourage the pursuit of individualism, he sought to educate others in the recognition of being individuals in a grander scheme of things. That, while we might all be separate beings, that we are all a part of the Universe, and that everything we do should be in correlation to the promotion and expansion of all living beings. Another strong factor of Whitman’s thoughts on expansive individualism, as expressed in “Leaves of Grass”, is that the way we discover and expand ourselves is based
What is morality? There are many different views on what morality really is, but the one I find to be closest to the truth is Nietzsche’s view. Nietzsche completely reevaluated all of the values tied to morality and concluded that there is little true value in this world. Morality has always seemed to be complex and always been kept in a very limited “box”. Nietzsche goes beyond the normal limits and out of the “box” morality has been kept in. Nietzsche believed that there is no truth, just beliefs. Morality is just another belief. All beliefs are just interpretations or ways of looking at the world. Everything is a perspective. How I might view morality or what I might consider to be moral may be and probably will be very different from how someone else’s views. Nietzsche does not think we truly understand morality or the history of it. This is primarily where he believes other philosophers have gone wrong when trying to understand and describe what morality is. Nietzsche says, “As is the hallowed custom with philosophers, the thinking of all them is by nature unhistorical…” (Nietzsche, 25). Nietzsche believed that historically there were two types of morality: slave morality and master morality. Nietzsche says that, “It was out of this pathos of distance that they first seized the right to create values and to coin names for values…” (Nietzsche, 26). How we view morality now along with many other things has changed over the course of time. Nietzsche calls this conceptual transformation. Nietzsche says, “Thus one also imagined that punishment was devised for punishment. But purposes and utilities are only signs that a will to power has become master of something less powerful and imposed upon it the character of a function…” (Nie...
Nietzsche believed that we should have the ability, the freedom to make our own choices socially. He felt that all individuals should be free to form their own moral compass system. He was clearly against religion and the fear mongrel mentality to control ones choices and dictation over what was deemed moral. He was asking for a radical change, for us to reconstruct how we define morality. But that said, Nietzsche himself failed to offer an explicit alternative to Kant’s theory of morality. Nietzsche offered nothing more than a contentious critique over Kant’s almost 100-year-old system that theoretically and realistically worked.
...Nietzsche’s argument may seem trivial, it is in fact crucial in terms of today’s concern over politics, religion, consumerism and even education. Let’s examine the movie The Matrix again. The human race is enslaved to a powerful army of robots. The matrix, also known as a false reality, is created to keep the enslaved humans oblivious to what is going on. Finally, the main character, Neo, rejects this illusion called the matrix; and fights to free himself from slavery. Though a bit unrealistic, this argument seems to be parallel with Nietzsche’s argument that we are “deeply immersed in illusions”. Nietzsche insists that an individual who accepts truths “is like a servant who goes in search of booty and prey for his master. Conversely, an individual who rejects this illusion “becomes the master and it dares to wipe from its face the expression of indigence” (461).