Many claim that Friedrich Nietzsche was an ‘articulate man who had lost his grip on reality’. However we already know that all philosophers have received some form of criticism throughout their careers. Even Socrates was tried on two charges; with corrupting the youth and impiety. It seems as though one cannot think for oneself and broaden one’s vision of the universe without stirring a little controversy. I feel that one cannot truly have knowledge of something without considering every ethical position and outlook. For as we begin to think on the ‘why’ of the decisions we make, we’re able to form more concrete resolutions to the situations we’re placed in. I feel this is important, as Nietzsche believed contrary to many philosophers in his day, even some of the greatest philosophers of all time in Plato and Socrates.
Nietzsche’s primary understanding of the life of Socrates was as the death of life. Socrates embodied the reason, virtue, and happiness, who believed in the vanity of life. He was known to walk around, living in a state of poverty, and question the moral beliefs and ethical decisions of those around him. Nietzsche believes that Socrates and Plato were the ‘symptoms of decline’ for life, for the reason that life was a sickness, and it progressed as more reason revealed the sickness many covered. What then is the value of life? Nietzsche responds that it is a paradox: ‘For a philosopher to see a problem in the value of life is almost an objection against himself, a note of interrogation set against his wisdom—a lack of wisdom.’
This, being said simply, is Nietzsche encouraging the enjoyment of life and pleasure. To focus more on this life we are currently living, and not give in to the sickness that dep...
... middle of paper ...
...if we are able to see it in others - or even worse, in ourselves. As I reflect on my own Christian beliefs and my own behavior, I see that Nietzsche is challenging my morals and beliefs. First, with the very fact I’m Christian and believe in God is directly contradictory to his ideals. With that comes my desire to live a moral life and pattern this life after Jesus Christ, as well as a belief in an afterlife. All such things have been touched on previously as being considered foolish by the ‘Anti-Christ’ and ‘immoralist’. He speaks with great irony concerning the belief of morals and the opinions of those who claim knowledge of the purpose of this life. I believe his influence is still prominent in those who choose to carefully examine and consider his work, as well as those who seek greater understanding of the purpose of religion and its role in our lives.
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.
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
There is an equilibrium of the unhistorical and historical, of forgetting and remembering that, like Greek tragedy, affirms life7. In The Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life, he gives an account of the historical circumstances of the epoch in which he is living that have lead to the disruption of this equilibrium. Nietzsche finds modern life to have pushed the historical mode of living found in man past its natural limits until it ceases to be a life affirming method of coping with existence—‘it was’ becomes such an immense weight upon us that it crushes us rendering us “fragments and limbs of man,” as Zarathustra
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.
Leiter, Brian. “Nietzsche’s Moral and Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 26 August 2004.
“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.
Others still have pity for the poor and needy etc. Nietzsche dislikes religion especially Christianity because it encourages and promotes slave morality. Nietzsche says that we should be striving towards master morality, but Christianity has the completely opposite values to those of the master morality. For example, religion wants us to be like slaves and give things up instead of trying to be great. He talks about a slave revolt in morality, which leads to the dominance of slave values over master values.
Furthermore, he was profoundly anti-life, so much that “he wanted to die”. Before Socrates died he stated that he has "been sick for a long time" and Nietzsche argues “For a philosopher to see a problem in the value of life, is almost an objection against himself, a note of interrogation set against his wisdom—a lack of wisdom”. Nietzsche blamed the spreading of this attitude for the rise of Christianity, romanticism and Kant's philosophy. Nietzsche was a unique philosopher; he looked down upon anyone or anything that takes significance away from the earth, and places it in a fictional realm of
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
But I believe this is a misuse of the word. As a defender of earthly life and humanity, it is understandable that Nietzsche would despise pessimism, yet Socrates' behavior, as far as I see it, does not qualify to be characterized as one. The dictionary definition of pessimism is "a tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen; a lack of hope or confidence in the future." Yet what is less pessimist than to believe there is life even beyond what human beings believe to be the worst that can happen to oneself, death? Nietzsche says this about Socrates: "He had merely kept a cheerful mien while concealing all his life long his ultimate judgment, his inmost feeling. " But Socrates never concealed his inmost feeling about the body or the soul. This statement, thus, loses merit in that regard. Nietzsche's claim is that Socrates fell his own standard in the face of death, but it seems like Nietzsche is targeting not at that last words as they were no secret. Socrates clearly presents his belief that life is a "practice for dying and death ". He believes death is a liberation from the imprisonment of the
The frustration of this urge, Nietzsche saw, is responsible for the existence of various moral systems and religious institutions. Nietzsche was particularly hostile to Christianity, which he famously calls a “slave morality”. In it he saw the resentment of the weak towards the strong.
Nietzsche says, that our automatic thinking has religious fundamentals, which we are not conscious of (Nietzsche, 1882). Nietzsche supposed that with the death of God, the essence for morals in the Western world had been ruined. The only thing is, is that it is unrealized by the people in the. The madman who wanted them to come to realization had come to (Nietzsche, 1882).
This is why he claims that the “Church is hostile to life”. Nietzsche also claims that although some of our passions are stupid, to attempt to destroy them is not only unfruitful, but also “an acute form of stupidity” (p.1234). Desires
Humans used language to construct this image of God, an unknowable being, in an attempt to relate to Him. In fact, in their effort to try to hold on to and create God, Christians have unknowingly created an idol, instead of worshipping the true metaphysical God. Because of this internal, universal need to create a God, Christianity is “always beset by the temptation to be satisfied with its static gazes at God rather than the active life that discipleship” (Hovey, 142). All thought, knowledge, and experience is temporary, so Nietzsche’s bold declaration was presented as an invitation for individuals to reevaluate their lives and find new meaning in them. Through the process of self-examination, humans are able to free themselves from the convictions of modern society and create new meaning.
Germany is marked by a crisis that Nietzsche identifies as nihilism. Nihilism in the general sense is the belief that life is meaningless and there are no truths. This belief became prominent in Germany after World War I. Friedrich Nietzsche and Leo Strauss were German philosophers in pre and postwar Germany that are known for their writings on nihilism. The aim of this paper is to compare and contrast the concept of Nihilism from the views of Strauss and Nietzsche in order to examine why Nietzsche’s view was not as widely accepted by German youth. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher whose works focused more on the individual rather than the collective.