Throughout Honors Philosophical Explorations, many of the readings and class discussions have transformed the way in which I think of philosophy as a subject, but more importantly how I apply it to my own life. At the onset of this course, I recognized that one’s life philosophy is in a constant state of tension. There are two factors that seem to be at odds with one another that play integral roles in shaping one’s life philosophy. These two factors are commitment to a stance and openness to new ideas. This commitment, by nature, is wholehearted and all-encompassing. If one is committed to a philosophy then it naturally is the lens that shades how we perceive the world around us. However our view of the world must not be so concrete that there …show more content…
One aspect of our inability to be perfect is that there is no comprehensive, truly accurate, accepted idea of perfection. Because each individual is situated in a distinctly different way, the perspective in which we view the world is incredibly diverse. Individual biases distinctly color how we perceive everything in this world. To inch our way closer to what is true and what is just, we have to start by questioning that in which we take for granted. In Thought Memo 5, I criticized Friedrich Nietzsche for his inflammatory dismissal of Socrates. While at first I was not receptive to Nietzsche, I later recognized that Nietzsche was demonstrating a trait in which is of great use if we are to transform ourselves with the hope of transforming the world. I grasped onto the idea of questioning what we assume to be so concrete that we fail to give a second thought. The immediate topic of contention was the legitimacy of Socrates as a great Philosopher. Nietzsche claimed in Twilight of the Idols Or, How to Philosophize with the Hammer, that “we have to be cunning, sharp, clear at all costs: every acquiescence to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads downward…” (Nietzsche 16). Through this, Nietzsche is condemning beliefs that are brought upon without intense examination. To not falter “downward” we must not only …show more content…
In The Ethics of Ambiguity, Simone de Beauvoir calls for action against social injustices. De Beauvoir asserts that once the marginalized have the ability to break the confines in which limit them, they must do so in order to take control of their situation. De Beauvoir states, “once there appears a possibility of liberation, it is resignation of freedom not to exploit the possibility, a resignation which implies dishonesty and which is a positive fault” (Beauvoir). We are born into a world that is not our choosing but we have a responsibility to leave a world that we helped to create and improve. In thought Memo 14, I assert that in order not to lose freedom one must push back against the strains of their situation at every point possible. Now at the end of my current journey through Philosophy, I must apply to this to the blatantly obtrusive constraints in which so many are suffering within. I must be distinct in choosing what to stand for and what I allow to go on unquestioned in our society. By choosing to look the other way, and by choosing not to place pressure on societal injustices that have become normalized, then it signifies that our condoning of the practice. The gravity of the choice of inaction is just as immense as the gravity of the choice to take action. The immense gravity of choosing inaction is more than
Shiffman believes that the drop in interest in the humanities results in the inability of students to have clear bearings amid life’s uncertainties. He believes that only by studying the humanities will students be able to introspect and recognize that endless achievement may not add up to a meaningful life (Shiffman 5). However, Shiffman fails to realize that this form of reflection need not be done solely by those majoring in the humanities. It can be done by all who try, their fields of study are no limitation. In fact, it may be this same reflection that leads to an individual’s decision to prioritize practicality. Not all those who choose the practical path are doing it for themselves. Many may do it for their families, as a safe and stable means of supporting their loved ones. Others may take this opportunity to give back to their community through the ways they are most skilled. Instead of pursuing a single interest in a certain field, they choose to follow their various callings. Doing solely what an individual loves is a self-centered view of the world. While it is important to chase happiness, it is also important to reflect on what one is doing to spread happiness to the rest of the world. One must find something that they are good at, and put that into the world. They should contribute to others and help the world be better, in addition to following their passions. An individual’s acts of service may just become one of their many passions.
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: Philosophizing Without Categorizing. How are we to philosophize without "Ism?" For, although defining a person in terms of an Ism is dangerous--both because it encourages identification of the individual with the doctrine and because it denies her the possibility of becoming that, as a human, she is heir to--grouping people according to a doctrine to which they subscribe is a convenient mental shortcut. Although grouping people into verbal boxes entails the danger of eventually seeing all of the boxes as equal, or similar enough to make no difference, the necessity of seeing the totality of a single human being is impossible. And although the qualities of my existence, or anyone else's existence (an individual's isness), are constantly undergoing a process, both conscious and unconscious, of revaluation and change, the change is usually not great enough over short lengths of time to qualify as noticeable.
Enter here The ear splitting crackle from a whip is heard as a master shouts orders to a slave. This to most people would make them comfortable. The idea of slavery is one that is unsettling to most people. This is because most people feel it is unmoral or morally wrong to own another human being. However Nietzsche would not necessarily believe this because he did believe in a morality that fits all. Ethics and morality are completely objective and cannot be one set of rules for everyone. Ethics and morality that are more strictly defined are for the weak, the strong do not need a set of rules because they can take care of themselves.
When one considers the extensive degree to which modern philosophy has invested in scrutinizing the subject of morality, the default reaction would perhaps be one of amenable acceptance. After all, the significance of morality is obvious, and questions such as what constitutes as moral and how exactly does one become moral have been matters of contention for maybe longer than philosophy has even existed. It can be said therefore, that philosophy is steadfast in its fascination with everything morality. It is also precisely this almost fanatic obsession with morality that Nietzsche is so critical of. This is not to say the he would reject the importance or even the necessity of morality altogether. He is concerned however, that
“…having a philosophy of life, whether it be stoicism or some other philosophy, can dramatically simplify everyday living”(Irvine 203).
“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.
Jean-Paul Sartre wrote, “Man is condemned to be free.” Beauvoir takes this statement and expands on it to explain her ideas of freedom and how one attains or attempts to dismiss it. The philosopher Dostoievsky stated, “If God does not exist everything is permitted,” (15) however Beauvoir disagrees. If God does not exist man has a greater responsibility to do what is deemed right and moral “He bears the responsibility
Nietzsche was a man who questioned the morality of his time. He dug deep in to what good really meant, and if there was a difference between bad and evil. He sought to look at the world by stepping back and looking at it with out the predisposition of what morality was/is. He looked at what he called slave and noble morality. He looked passed what was on the surface, and gave us many things to digest and discuss. In this paper I will discuss how Nietzsche’s writing can be seen as favoritism towards the noble morality by touching on how he believes the noble morality and slave morality came about, then I will talk about his “birds of prey and lambs” example which shows his fondness of the bird of prey, and I will end with my interpretation
The term “philosophy” means the love of wisdom, and those that study philosophy attempt to gain knowledge through rationality and reason. 1 Socrates, the father of ancient philosophy, once stated “the unexamined life is not worth living”. This is the most important part of life and it is need to find purpose and value in life. If a person chooses to live their life without examination, their life would lack value and they would be unhappy. They would also be ignorant to the effects of their choices on themselves and the people around them.
We often think that our main goals are linked to perfection, however, we are unaware of the devastating effect this unattainable concept has on our outlook on life when we cannot achieve it. Though the textbook definition of perfection is, “the quality or condition of being perfect and without flaws”, it is a vice that harbors many doubts and insecurities and holds us back from things we want to do for fear of not being good. Perfection is a concept that cannot be achieved as it does not exist.
There has been a lot of philosophical parameters that I have been able to experience through my workplace, school and social life. I have learned principles that ha...
All of Friedrich Nietzsche quotes were made before the age of 44. For the last 11 years of his life, he had no use of his mental capabilities. While many of Friedrich Nietzsche quotes were focused on religion, or the fallacy of it, it would be interesting to see what he would have written about later in his life and if his opinion would have changed. Although, the statement 'God is dead' did come from him, so there would likely have been no change in how he viewed religion. Many of his quotes are focused on human behavior and existence, and following are some that moved me.
One simple consideration that can change the course of how people think about their approach to life is, the examination of the influences that they have on other people’s lives. An individual could also look outwards and analyze the impact that other people have on that individual’s life. One should also self-reflect and search for how their thoughts and actions craft a pathway towards their own destiny. The statement by Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living,” is an interesting statement that requires a considerable amount of analysis.