Nietzsche as Free Spirit and New Philosopher
In the second chapter of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche develops a fragmented portrait of a character type to which he refers as the "free spirit." Throughout the rest of Beyond Good and Evil, he expands on this portrait and connects it with another type, the "new philosopher," which he connects with the type of the free spirit in a specific (although complex) way. Nietzsche conceptualizes himself, as I will show, as both a "free spirit" and as a "new philosopher."
Nietzsche spends a great deal of time describing the characteristics of both of these types. The central characteristic of the complex characterization of the free spirit is freedom - although Nietzsche conceptualizes this freedom in a non-traditional manner: it is not a political freedom, and it is certainly not democratic. In fact, this freedom "is for the very few" and for the "very strong" (Nietzsche 29). Independence is something for which one has to test oneself, argues Nietzsche, and if one "comes to grief, this happens so far from the comprehension of men that they neither feel it nor sympathize" (Nietzsche 40, 29). The characteristics of the free spirit described by Nietzsche throughout the book are characteristics that are uncommon among humanity: the free spirits are subtle and have "the art of nuances"; they are "extra-moral" and "immoralists" - that is, they do not bind themselves to the conventional beliefs about morality in which most people place their faith (Nietzsche 31, 32).
The primary characteristics of the free spirit, however, elucidate this type in a specific way that denies that the free spirit is merely a rare person. Nietzsche's characterization of free spirits de...
... middle of paper ...
...nally, we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life..."; "Perhaps he himself [the new philosopher] must have been" the eleven things which Nietzsche describes as important aspects of the new philosopher's education (Nietzsche Preface, 36, 211). Other examples are present in the work, but these will suffice to show that this work is of an experimental nature.
In the end, Nietzsche is not advocating a new dogma. Beyond Good and Evil is an explanation and a philosophical argument, but it is also an experiment, a creative attempt at a method of interpreting the world. Like other free spirits and new philosophers - if any have arrived yet - Nietzsche has liberated from the prejudices of previous philosophers that led into dogmatism.
References
Nietzsche, Friederich. Beyond Good and Evil. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Vintage, 1966.
According to him, the noble individuals who praise themselves and their actions, egoistic or egoistic, as good are defined as ‘good’. For Nietzsche, it is the feeling of superiority, powerfulness over the low class from where the concept of good originates. In contrast to the original morality, Nietzsche marks the modern morality as a product of Jewish radical reevaluation of values. Spilt off between the knights and the priests led to reevaluation; as per him, priests make the evilest enemy. Although physically weak, priests are more intelligent and have more say over the knights, and can do anything when it comes to power, virtue, revenge, pride. Comparing the Jews with the priest, Nietzsche marks the radical reevaluation when the Jews rejected the aristocratic definition of good and divided modern morality from the original
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.
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
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.
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”.
Human nature as they both analysis is affected socially; it’s not a separable characteristic. It is knocked by achievements, failures, happiness, desire, pain, and pleasure and not followed as beliefs and traditions. Freud tends to show the inner struggle for the human in his analysis, but Nietzsche shows the outer struggle.
...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.
Take a minute to relax. Enjoy the lightness, or surprising heaviness, of the paper, the crispness of the ink, and the regularity of the type. There are over four pages in this stack, brimming with the answer to some question, proposed about subjects that are necessarily personal in nature. All of philosophy is personal, but some philosophers may deny this. Discussed here are philosophers that would not be that silly. Two proto-existentialists, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, were keen observers of humanity, and yet their conclusions were different enough to seem contradictory. Discussed here will be Nietzsche’s “preparatory human being” and Kierkegaard’s “knight of faith”. Both are archetypal human beings that exist in accordance to their respective philosopher’s values, and as such, each serve different functions and have different qualities. Both serve the same purpose, though. The free spirit and the knight of faith are both human beings that brace themselves against the implosion of the god concept in western society.
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.
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...
By looking at one of Nietzsche’s specific postulations of perspectivism, we can get a better idea of precisely how this term applies to his philosophy and how it relates to the “tru...
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.
But he objects to the values of the New Testament that shouldn't be linked to the Old Testament. They demote power. He sees religion as intensely nihilistic - it's all about denying life and being negative. Nietzsche feels that the New Testament is also like that. We have to go beyond this.
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.
The church told them that they had original sin and that by focusing on God, Heaven, and one’s soul, the church can fix the sin inside one. This is Nietzsche’s theory called Metaphysical. The Metaphysical theory says that the church has one pay attention to their internal instead of having the followers focus on the life they live now. By focusing just on God, Heaven, and Soul, one is deemphasizing the importance of the religion itself. With the revaluation of values, Nietzsche focused on morality, more specifically, Master Morality and Slave Morality. Master Morality is when one is concerned with strength and competition, and achieving goals is an accomplishment. Slave Morality deals with concepts of good and evil with the Evil representing the Master morality. The slave morality lives within the master’s shadows and will reject what the master stands for, this morality will suffer from resentment also, both moralities can be found in the same person. In a person, the Master morality vision has gone beyond the concepts of good and evil and has looked into a deeper meaning in themselves, but the master morality is not an end