Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Individual power in society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Individual power in society
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.
‘Free individuals put their will into things, whereas believers see in things a will.’(Lackey:1999:6) Alternatively, in other words, things are not tethered to an ideal (religion, governments) but rather only to a person's will to power. Nietzsche, saw that to achieve free will, the restraints of religion and bureaucratic democracy needed to be
…show more content…
Nietzsche does disclose that life brings with it misery, sadness, and isolation but the path to freedom is to create a life removed from the traditions that cause constraint of will and eliminate us from conformity, and the power of others in our lives. ‘The overman is within us; it is not "out there."’ (Ansell-Pearson:1992:323). It is somewhat a nihilistic approach to remove oneself from the chains of society, to pursue a life outside of the socially acceptable norms, though Nietzsche argued that nihilism is the destroyer of society, culture and the bonds of humanity, suggesting that new standards should be developed. ‘Rather, he becomes, to his mind, the first sane voice crying in the intellectual wilderness: make way the coming of a new human, a "subject" which can only become a "self " when it paradoxically learns to overcome its very constructed
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.
However, Nietzsche’s idea of the powerful forcing their will on common people resonates with me. It is something we see in our modern society, wealthy people seem to have a higher influence over the average American. Examples of powerful people controlling others are found in politics, economy, media, and religion. Common people are lead to think in certain ways that the powerful need them to. Nietzsche said that people will only be equal as long as they are equal in force and talent, people who have a higher social group are more influential in decisions because average people look to them for information. The thing I do not agree with Nietzsche on his view as Christianity as a weakness because religion is a main cause of people’s decision
Nietzsche uses an elevated level of diction to help him achieve his purpose, he uses Latin in many passages to make the reader look to the bottom of the page and thus think about what he is proposing. His combination of elevated diction along with deductive reasoning can sometimes lose the reader, but just as fast as the reader is lost Nietzsche offers forth a formula which helps the reader follow his thinking. Nietzsche believes that a person’s "virtue is the consequence of happiness," or that a person’s emotions are the product of their beliefs. Nietzsche’s uses consequence to mean something more like cause than effect. He interchanges monosyllabic and polysyllabic - in the form of metaphors - words in connotation to sometimes differ the reader from the beaten track of thinking. He believes in a set course "that he became ill, that he failed to resist the illness," for humans and that they cannot deter from it (this is very far left in a time of conservative Europeans, late 19th century). Even in his "formulas" Nietzsche’s meaning is not as straight forward as it seems. It seems that he believes that individuals genetically are means to an end, but this is more of a metaphor for humanity, or that humanity is their own means to an end.
Nietzsche believed we create the self through our experiences and our actions, and in order to be a complete self, we must accept everything we have done. I agree with him in this sense. Although it is easy to learn from the mistakes of others, there is no greater lesson than learning from our own mistakes. He also believed there is much more to the self than we know about. This is another example about how we learn about ourselves through our experiences and actions.
...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.
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.
Neither a systematic philosopher nor a rigid thinker, Nietzsche offers his own nihilistic spin on the topic of free will. The three different approaches to free will by Nietzsche, Hume, and Descartes all obtain their strong suits as well as their pitfalls. Nietzsche insists free will is created by theologians and therefore denies its existence, while Descartes embraces free will, and Hume individualizes the meaning of free will. With the “Design Argument” in Meditations on First Philosophy to ignite his proclamation on the topic of free will, Descartes summons free will to be given entirely through the creator, God. With his robust belief in God, Descartes concludes that free will is attributed to God’s creation of a person.
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
Free will can be defined as: “The right, given to humans by God, to make their own decisions.” A mans free will cannot be destroyed by any power other than God. Humans can always exercise their free will when making decisions. However, when their decisions come in conflict with the laws set by a higher power, they might face consequences based on how they choose to use their free will. The more restrictions imposed upon someone’s free will the more restricted their ability to make decisions become. The extent to which someone may exercise their free will can be defined as their “freedom.” Therefore, the more laws imposed upon someone’s free will the more restricted their freedom. Although no power, save God, can destroy free will, they can limit and even destroy someones freedom. In the essay Shooting an Elephant George Orwell argues that, “when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys” (Orwell, 704). Free will is indestructible; an example of Orwell’s destruction of freedom but preservation of free will is given in his essay. In Antigone an example of how even though higher powers can limit your decisions they cannot stop you from exercising your free will.
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.
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.
In philosophy “Nihilism” is a position of radical skepticism. It is the belief that all values are baseless and nothing is known. The word “Nihilism” itself conveys a sense of abolishing or destroying (IEP). Nietzsche’s work and writings are mostly associated with nihilism in general, and moral nihilism especially. Moral nihilism questions the reality and the foundation of moral values. Nietzsche supported his view on morality by many arguments and discussions on the true nature of our inner self. Through my paper on Moral Nihilism, I will explain 5 major arguments and then try to construct a deductive argument for each, relying on Nietzsche’s book II “Daybreak”.
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...
...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.