Nietzsche's Flaws

In evaluating a philosophy, there is a tendency for one to assess certain formal and linguistic shortcoming in addition to the philosophical status of the work. For instance, areas like looseness of terminologies, lack of systematization, consistency, continuity and internal contradictions in thought come to mind. There is an iota of truth that there is hardly any philosopher who is free of these flaws. However when these flaws become the order of the day in such a field like philosophy then, it tends to become another thing rather than philosophy intended. Nietzsche in his philosophical write-ups is highly symbolical and his addiction to hyperbole and polemical antithesis call for some vagueness and ambiguities. These facilitated misunderstandings

Owing to this, not only Nietzsche’s critics, but his admirers, including some members of the Nazi party, have ignored his critical insistence on sublimation, and construed his conception of the ‘will to power’ and his opposition to Christianity in terms of wantonness and brutality.

Furthermore, Nietzsche in his style of writing is more poetic than philosophical. Owing to this, Richard Rorty comments on the argumentative systematic philosophers such as Nietzsche, that whatever else he (Nietzsche) may be, he is not a philosopher. This implies that his work is more of a literature than philosophy, and so, one may be tempted to just regard Nietzsche as an author of literature or

Equally, his reference to universal (conventional) morality as slave morality hardly passes the test of reason. He seems to undermine the fact that conventional morality developed gradually in human history owing to the gregarious instinct in man. It has passed through the test of time and has been of great help in refining man in his society. It is therefore unfair and unwise for him to just kick it aside and to replace it with his own morality. The master morality which Nietzsche seems inclined to negates some positive values of objective morality which he tagged as slave morality. Russell trying to comment on this said: “I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die.” Since Nietzsche’s unconventional morality, negates the positive values of conventional, it is seriously doubtful whether his type of morality can really deliver the moral goods that men need.

Nietzsche’s rigorous attack and condemnation of Christianity and its moralities seems to me very untenable. He attacks Christianity on