Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nietzsche philosophy
Friedrich nietzsche, essay
Philosopher friedrich nietzsche essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nietzsche philosophy
This essay will discuss Friedrich Nietzsche’s notion of the eternal return and how it will help us to understand the character of the Overman. For Nietzsche, the eternal return symbolises the significance of here and now; it wills the biggest affirmation possible, while the character of the Overman symbolises the ability to rethink our values and move away from heard mentality by risk taking and constant experiment. Due to the complexity of Nietzsche’s work, it is important to understand his concepts in detail in order to link and compare them. Therefore, I will first introduce Nietzsche as a philosopher of affirmation, before defining Nietzsche’s character of the Overman and his notion of the eternal return and in more detail. This will be …show more content…
This is someone with no ideologies, who does not takes the opportunity to revaluate values, does not take risks and accepts things for what they are. This is a state of passive Nihilism and someone that Nietzsche wants to warn us of. The Overman is the opposite of this condition of man and what we need to move towards. The Overman has the ability to rethink values in the face of Nihilism, of which it is conscious of, as well as the death of God. The Overman is characterised by freedom and independence and is open to taking risks. The Overman is transcendental and something that we have to strive towards through constant experimentation. Such ‘an individual who could reject the ‘God hypothesis’, who could look the truths of pessimism in the face and still say ‘Yes’ to life, would cease to be an ordinary human; such an individual would in fact become a Superhuman.’ (Southwell, 2009, p.145) Yet still, this freedom must be thought about carefully as it consists of self-appropriation and free spirit. Nietzsche is against the concept of human beings having free will. He believes instead that we are somewhat determined as we are answerable to our bodies and social institutions. Nevertheless, we still have a choice and the possibility to create and shape our life by moving away from the heard mentality of the last man, towards the promising stage of the Overman. We should be open to the forces of life but …show more content…
We exist here and now and should act accordingly. Consequently, this thought terrifies Zarathustra – ‘Thus I spoke, and I spoke more and more softly; for I was afraid of my own thoughts and reservations.’ (Nietzsche, 1974, p.179) This sense of determinism can cause feelings of Nihilism. Yet still, since there is no priority to the past of future, it can be argued that everything is open to come. Even though we carry history, we can now act in a different way to change our character, hopefully for the better. Both the past and the future hinge on the significance of there here and now - ‘the eternal recurrence, it seems, is inseparable from a philosophy of will – transforming ‘it was’ into ‘I wanted it thus’ – that promises a radically revised relationship between past and present and a new art of living.’ (Spinks, 2003, p.125) In summary, Nietzsche’s notion of the eternal return symbolises the present moment with awareness that we are determined by the past but our actions now can change the future. We have to act now to break through; it is only our willingness now that can break patterns of behaviour. The eternal return is ‘a world without any hope, which would test your ability to enjoy only the current moment – whatever that may contain. Such an existence is a test of how positive and strong a person’s attitude to life is.’ (Southwell, 2008, p.145) It would take a strong person, seemingly the character of
Take a minute to relax. Enjoy the lightness, or surprising heaviness, of the paper, the crispness of the ink, and the regularity of the type. There are over four pages in this stack, brimming with the answer to some question, proposed about subjects that are necessarily personal in nature. All of philosophy is personal, but some philosophers may deny this. Discussed here are philosophers that would not be that silly. Two proto-existentialists, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, were keen observers of humanity, and yet their conclusions were different enough to seem contradictory. Discussed here will be Nietzsche’s “preparatory human being” and Kierkegaard’s “knight of faith”. Both are archetypal human beings that exist in accordance to their respective philosopher’s values, and as such, each serve different functions and have different qualities. Both serve the same purpose, though. The free spirit and the knight of faith are both human beings that brace themselves against the implosion of the god concept in western society.
Tanksley reports about her young life up to this point that “if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn’t change a thing.” Can you use this as a point of departure for
...Hence he concluded that individuals of a society governed by capitalism risked falling into a state of nihilism bereft of meaning. Moreover, the solution he believed was that of a superhuman. A superhuman understands life’s lack of intransience and consequentially looks within for meaning. However, life’s transitory quality results in the superhuman having to constantly recreate in order to overcome the continuously new obstacles thrown at him. Correspondingly, Nietzsche ascertains the quest for satiation of one’s hedonistic insatiable desires, is the greatest strength for a superhuman. This is chiefly due to it being the underlying source for man’s insatiable desire to overcome. Coincidentally, the syntax, as noted by Ginsberg, is one of a pyramidal structure. The monotonic crescendo, symbolizes Solomon’s growing madness and its correlation with a heightened joy.
Nietzsche’s society depended more on the human’s strength, human nature was seen weak if someone lacks to specific strength. And so because of the society’s stresses and pressures, humans were seen as machines. There was the sense of frustration to be original and creative and that’s why Nietzsche thought that human should be led by a hero.
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
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 aim of this paper is to provide a detailed explanation on Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence, and then proceeds to determine whether such a concept results in the betterment of a free spirit’s life, or whether this is not the case. Before determining whether the concept has a positive outcome or not, it is important to provide a detailed...
Firstly, Nietzsche stated that life is death in the making and all humans should not be determined by an external force rather, he believed that humans should have the incentive to think for themselves. Nietzsche claimed the future of a man is in his own hands. Simultaneously, humans are phased with struggles in the attempt to self-create themselves. Nietzsche proceeded with his argument affirming
“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.
In 1887, two years before succumbing to utter madness, existential philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche writes his ethical polemic, On the Genealogy of Morals, in search of a man with the strength to evolve beyond humanity: But from time to time do ye grant me. one glimpse, grant me but one glimpse only, of something perfect, fully realized, happy, mighty, triumphant, of something that still gives cause for fear! A glimpse of a man that justifies the existence of man. for the sake of which one may hold fast to the belief in man! Nietzsche, 18.
He stated that ‘each human being has a specific nature and calling which is uniquely his or her own, and unless these are fulfilled through a union of conscious and unconscious, the person can become sick.’
Friedrich Nietzsche was on the cutting edge of sociological and philosophical theory when he lived in the latter part of the Nineteenth century. His ideas and theories about the world around him inspired some of the most recognized schools of thought in the modern world(or post-modern as it is seen). His post-humous work The Will to Power is the culmination of his life's work and allows for all who read it to understand the genius behind one of the greatest thinkers of all time. In The Will to Power, Nietzsche explains how the will is the controlling device each of us, and that the true will should only be used on oneself and not to take advantage of or injure another. Nietzsche seeks all who read it to understand how this is the true exercise of will and how the world has been run down by people using their will in the wrong way.
...ot resent during Nietzsche's lifetime. However his ideas of how individual perspectives and will are shaped or influenced within a given culture are very much observable in these media forms. Mass culture as propagated by the media has imposed certain moral considerations and values on individuals that they may not necessarily have subscribed to. In effect this has led to individuals how function like zombies, following blindly concepts carried by the media as the only real issues. The mass culture advanced by the media has advanced some form of complacency that has restricted issues under consideration and that need attention by human beings. The scope of human thinking, as well as their autonomy in making decisions, has been taken away as individuals continue to operate like robots being directed by other entities, perhaps for easy political and social management.
Nietzsche thought the vast majority of people are “bound spirits”, trapped by the beliefs that have been indoctrinated into them by their families, governments, and religions. The free spirit comparatively is one who has liberated themselves from the belief system and bias of others. The term “free spirit” to Nietzsche means a mind that takes ownership of itself without the boundaries of the past. A free spirit becomes the master of their mind, imperceptible by hoodwinks, and thus, finding the falsehoods in ignorance, censorship, and tyranny to lead to the truth.
Nothing returns. Each moment is fresh, new, unique—impermanent. (Hagen 45) What all of these concepts have in common is that they suppose some enduring entity—incarnate, here and now—that persists and, after it dies, disintegrates, only to reemerge as something else again. ”(Hagen