The role of man in the cosmos is a topic of great debate among philosophers throughout history. Alexander Pope and Friedrich Nietzsche were two writers who took on this challenging dilemma in two very different fashions. I will be using Pope’s “An Essay on Man” in order to show and discuss his beliefs on the subject and Walter Kaufmann’s Portable Nietzsche as my source for Nietzsche’s opinion on the topic. Although both tackle the issue, they go about it with two very different processes. Alexander Pope’ Epistle I directly focuses on the topic “of the nature and State of Man, with respect to the Universe.” Pope begins by naming his task to “vindicate the ways of God to man.” He wants to explain the cosmos in ways in which man can understand it. This severely limits what you can and cannot use to validate his views because he must start within the framework of man (Pope, Section 1, 17-33). He discusses systems and frames of reference as creating bounds by which to consider the universe. This is clear because it would be impossible to understand things that are not even in the same system of thought. If one attempts to arrive at a conclusion that is outside the system then they would not have the process to be able to achieve that goal. Pope then goes on to describe the shortcomings of man and how they are currently failing. This is important to understand because they are not fulfilling their role in the cosmos. He discusses the pride of man and how as he attempts to get closer to God he is actually getting farther and farther away. He cannot begin to judge what is perfect and good. That is the role of God and when humans try to imitate Him they create a foundation of failure and go against the cosmos (Pope, Sec... ... middle of paper ... ...ving for something that does not exist, God. Pope’s solution is that man should just stop striving and should instead accept what is and stop worrying about what he/she does not understand. For Nietzsche, he wants man to live for themselves. Instead of focusing on another entity, they should be the best that they can be for their own good and health. The common issue in philosophy over how man should act within the larger universe is a very interesting problem. When Pope and Nietzsche tackle it, they both come at the problem with very different approaches in how they argue their points and in the actual solution. Such drastic differences in their opinions of God seem fundamental in their solutions to this classic dilemma. Whether we are too prideful or believing in something that does not exist, one thing is true. Humanity in its current course is failing.
With the hindsight of the 1960s, it is easy for us to view how influencers of the era have reformed and revitalised the Christian tradition to a great extent. Because of this hindsight of the 1960s, an era in which the zeitgeist was full of intellectuals, poets, musicians and authors, we can see the traditions of Christianity were considered to be backward to a world that was changing in terms of beliefs and ethics as society embraced these social reforms. The statement then clearly reflects Pope John XXIII and his impacts on Catholicism. Pope John XXIII recognized these changes and through his leadership, the impacts he had on Christianity had a substantially large influence over the Catholic Church as he ultimately altered the Christian tradition by creating the Vatican II. By doing so, he adjusted traditional Church Scriptures (ressourcement), involved himself with promoting ecumenicalism and also interfaith-dialogue as well as becoming engaged in the modern world (aggiornamento), therefore meeting the needs of the evolving society by revitalising the old traditions.
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.
...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.
Friedrich Nietzsche is an influential German Philosopher who is known for his writings, on Good and Evil, the end of religion in society, and the concept of “super man.” Nietzsche was born in 1844, in Röcken bei Lützen Germany. He published numerous works of philosophy, which includes Twilights of the Idols, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In 1880’s Nietzsche developed points of his philosophy. One of his famous statements is that “God is dead” which is a rejection to the Christian faith. Others were his endorsement of self-perfection throughout creative drive and a will to power, which brought his concept “super-man) which is an individual who strives to exist beyond conventional categories of good and evil. Nietzsche made a major influence on
Enter here There is a shepherd that is guiding his flock it is his job to protect the sheep and to lead them to where they need to be. This works because the shepherd is smarter and stronger then the sheep. The sheep will follow their Shepherd anywhere and if one gets lost then it is the job of the Shepherd to bring the lost sheep back to the heard. Nietzsche would say that the strong man is that Shepherd and that the world needs the strong to lead the weak. The strong man is not just a man that can lift more weight or can win a fight, but a strong man is one that follows his passion and excels at it. The truly
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.
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.
The Jesuit astrophysicist finds himself in a mental conundrum; is the universe really the creation and the will of God? He tries to convince himself by stating, “God has no need to justify His actions to man.” (Clarke 81) But the divide between religion and science begins to drift farther apart in his consciousness. If the situation were inevitable, then God would have prevented their destruction but instead chose not to. He cannot shake the feeling that God is not the purest being as he so believes, as someone with a good heart would not allow the annihilation of such a peaceful civilization to occur. As he questions his religion he views the crucifix and begins to see it as nothing more than “an empty symbol” of something he once believed to be
...’s lack of a direct response to this apparent contradiction ensures that this matter will continue to be hotly debated well into the future. For this seemingly simple contradiction of positing truths when one has denied all absolute truths, Nietzsche gives a very complex and personal answer.
The essence of man, as defined by Pope, is a series of paradoxical, yet concrete sets of contrasting wo...
Through studies, “Most arguments for the existence of God, such as; the Teleological Argument, the cosmological Argument, and The Moral argument, are from the ancient world. The Ontological argument comes from medieval times. By the moral argument has modern interest, emanating from works of Immanuel Kant”. (489) All fighting for their meaning to exist.
...m with these words: "Whatever is, is right" (333). This implies that things are done or happen for a reason. When humanity tries to change things for individual gain rather than the improvement of the whole it weakens the chain, which in turn affects the rest of the universe. I believe we are all individuals who are connected to a higher power, whatever that power may be. The beauty of humanity is exactly that individuality. I agree with Pope in the sense that we are all connected somehow, but I do not agree with total submission in order to achieve total unity. Rather than total submission, I believe our mission is to connect with the universe by using the special gifts given to us by the power that unites us.
Nietzsche was right in stating “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him” because it refers to the continued secularization of thought until humans came to rely far more on reason and logic than faith in any religion or God. This secularization has occurred through the Scientific Revolution, was furthered by the Enlightenment, and was acted upon within the French and American Revolutions. This has created a more secular society, with people who ascribe to logic, or logic and faith, instead of faith
Probably the most famous lines of this essay comes from the first two lines. Pope is telling man that it is their duty to study and strive to understand “himself” not God because man cannot understand God, so it would be a waste of time. Line three describes man as being placed between two things. He uses the term isthmus, which is a strip of land that connects two bigger masses of land (e.g. Isthmus of Panama). I’m not completely sure what they are between, but I am pretty sure it is between God and animals. Line four uses the oxymoron “darkly wise” and “rudely great.” “Darkly wi...
In the end, a story that appears to poke fun at the carefree lives of upper class women actually gives great appreciation to the subtle powers women hold over men. It could be argued that one of the most important powers of women is that of controlling men with their trivial problems and needs. Perhaps Pope was demonstrating women's skill in controlling men by simply playing the part of the vain shallow debutant. Whatever his intentions were it is clear that Alexander Pope did not in fact find the women of his time to be completely powerless, instead they were the driving forces of the household and of society.