Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nietzsche's philosophy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nietzsche's philosophy
Nietzsche sees himself as a modern gadfly, sent to provoke the ideologies of his times, much like the great Socrates of his time. However, the fact that Socrates legacy paradoxically has become the unquestioned doxa of the West. Nietzsche elaborates that there is a problem with men like Socrates; that, “Throughout the ages the wisest men have passed the same judgment on life: it is no good…” (NR). He concludes that the legacy of Socrates, Platonism, Christianity, Augustine, and Simon Weil are being life denying pessimists who agree would agree with Socrates that, “Life is one long illness.” (NR). The only other philosopher that Nietzsche respects is Heraclitus, who is was also a gadfly of his time. His process ontology, where, “we are wrong to speak of them as “being,” for none of them ever is; there are always becoming.” (PR). This view of reality supports the idea that there is a unity of …show more content…
“Even when expresses things that [she] believes, he is literally intolerable to [her]” (Simone Weil Handout, passage #1). She acknowledges that opposing forces such as madness and joy must exist in this world and all men must endure them both. These rules and forces of necessity she defines as Gravity in which, “all natural movements of the soul are controlled by laws analogous to those of physical gravity.” (Simone Weil Handout, passage #2). However, the human soul is not and cannot be induced with sadness and happiness at the same time, because the human soul only has a static ontology in respect to time; “madness is essentially the total privation of joy…” (Simone Weil Handout, passage #1), where the unjust only exist because of the just, but can only exist when there is a lack of the just. The just’s interruption of the presence of the unjust is what she refers to as Grace. This is a supernatural intervention that liberates humans from the oppressive forces of nature and
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.
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.
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.
...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.
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
Kain, Philip J. “Nietzsche, Eternal Recurrence, and the Horror of Existence.” Journal of Nietzshe Studies. Vol. 33. 2007. 49-63. Print.
“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.
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.
I know that there is one object on top of another object, even if it
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.
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”.
“God is dead. God remains dead, and we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become Gods simply to appear worthy of it?” (2). This quote was said by one of the greatest philosophers to have lived; Friedrich Nietzsche. Although Friedrich Nietzsche is not as well known as some of the philosophers that we’ve discussed in class; such as Plato, Descartes, or Socrates, he and his ideas have influenced the views of modern philosophy today. Friedrich Nietzsche is a german philosopher that was born October 15, 1844 and died at the ago of 55 on August 25th, 1900. Although Friedrich Nietzsche died at a fairly young age it doesn't mean that he didn't leave us with anything to remember him by. A few of his greatest works were; “The Will to Power, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, Antichrist and, The Gay Science” (6). The last of which I will be talking about in this essay because it contains Nietzsche’s; “God is Dead” pronouncement, which is what this paper will pertain to.