There are many things in life that aren’t concrete and are constantly changing, while with that comes different views and ideas on these things. Everyone is different, and expresses differing opinions on things that are considered fixed. In the Aphorism 124 (In the Horizon of the Infinite), Nietzsche is trying to convey this idea of discovering different perspectives around one’s surroundings, unlike the general consensus of viewing the world as a fixed object/idea. Through Nietzsche's Aphorism 127 I will expand upon Nietzsche’s idea of fluidity, while comparing Nietzsche’s view to a few of Aristotle’s views.
First off Nietzsche emulates his ideas by elaborating with the use of figurative language, instead of using literal sense to emphasize the idea of a different frame. For example, when one views art and poetry, each person will interpret it differently through their own experiences or knowledge, and Nietzsche understands this and using this to better exemplify his Aphorism. Aristotle uses a more systematic approach to elaborate his points, and lacks in the “artistic” department.
In the Aphorism 124 (In the Horizon of the Infinite), Nietzsche uses symbolism to further advance and lay out his image of society’s portrayal of the world. This idea of the land being burned is not meant literally, but metaphorically speaking with the thought in mind that people are moving forward without actual thought that they are leaving things behind. It seems as if people go through life without truly being conscious, almost as if going through the motion and not really realizing where they are in the world. Nietzsche further states that“[the ocean] does not always roar, and at times it lies spread out like silk and gold and reveries of gracio...
... middle of paper ...
...understand that is a crucial part to Nietzsche’s very own beliefs: coming to our own conclusions, and thought, believing in what is real and understanding where we are in relation to the world. While reading this Aphorism I couldn’t help but think of this idea of authenticity in our moral views. We based many of our moral ideas on things that were put forth and set in motion before we are able to make our own conclusions on an idea. Many people relay ideas and conceptions from what others think, we understand the world based on what is told to us; therefore, are the perspectives we have really from the right frame of mind. As I mentioned before, people have many interpretations as to what something means, and I think that people should continue to become more aware of what is around them and formulate authentic experiences and ethical views from doing just that.
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 central point of this essay is this “truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions.” (Pg. 146) He also goes on to say that the truth is a metaphor, using the Latin meanings of metaphor, meta (to carry with) and phora (to carry over), we can say that a metaphor is a transference between two completely different spheres. It is all about reasons, concepts, and perceptions. What we consider or believe to be the truth is simply a subject realm of experience, completely different from reality. For example, colors, if we were to believe and go by what Nietzsche is saying, colors are not absolute truths just illusions that we have created in our relative reality. So nothing is actually blue, and to take it a step further blue is not real, both perceptions are illusions that we have made
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”.
Flannery O' Connor's short story “Everything That Rises Must Converge” is about racial judgment in the south in the 1960's. O' Conors main focus in this story is how the white middle class viewed and treated people from different races in the 1960's. The story is an example of irony, redemption as well as a struggle of identity among the characters. The main characters in O'Connor's story are Julian an aspiring writer, who works as a typewriter salesmen, and his mother who is a low-middle class racist white woman who has strong views about thvxe African-American race. Both Julian and his mother are great depictions of the white mindsets of racial integration in the 1960's in which full equality for African-Americans was a new concept.
In Beyond Good and Evil, one of his attempts to sum up his thoughts—indeed, throughout his philosophical work, as far as I can tell, Nietzsche describes a type of experience and a way of living life that transcends these questions of Ism.... ... middle of paper ... ... However, rather than breaking the hold of logic on the mind, Nietzsche, with his jibing remarks, swashbuckling writing style, self-contradictions, and secrecy, intends to break the hold of socially determined "masks," or Isms, from the perceptions of the new philosopher who will arise the day after tomorrow.
...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.
...e. Because what we choose in life determines the degree to which we live. And at the very core of every person lies the drive to live. As humans with a high degree of cognitive intelligence, we are a part of nature, not above it; our high intellect should serve as a tool to understand this fact. To Nietzsche, humans must destroy everything, so that a new and more pure humanity centered on life can rise. I do agree that we must abandon the traditional illusions that have prevented humans from embracing life, but living in pursuit of destruction is not necessarily the answer. I believe that we must not let human made and human imposed notions of right or wrong control how we live, but living for the sake of destruction is not living. We must live to find an inner and individual satisfaction. Therefore, all life choices should be made with the intent of embracing life.
There are two possible understandings of an experience underwritten by God; either that God was constant and static but our capacity to understand him was limited; or that God was dynamic and exhibited agency and so we could never have a static set of criteria to evaluate truth against. It seems most likely that Nietzsche considered God to be the former arguing that “[m...
...’s lack of a direct response to this apparent contradiction ensures that this matter will continue to be hotly debated well into the future. For this seemingly simple contradiction of positing truths when one has denied all absolute truths, Nietzsche gives a very complex and personal answer.
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.
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.
When comparing Aristotle and Jesus, we should look at the different beliefs the two have about life, and virtue by asking questions such as; what are we all pursing in this life? Or, what exactly is virtue, and how does Aristotle’s and Jesus’s view compare to each other? Another question that presents its self when reading about these two is, what exactly makes somebody character truly virtuous or moral? Although there is no one for sure answer to these question, both Aristotle and Jesus devoted there life’s to study and teach about what they believed were the answers and it brings two very different but very interesting points of views on how Greek and Christian view the world.
Aristotle is one of the most important western philosophers in history that has influenced our society in many aspects. Many of Aristotle’s teachings have affected our world for many years and still continue to have such a big impact. Some of the subjects Aristotle has influenced include: logic, physics, government and poetry. Aristotle’s study of poetry mainly focused on the elements to a good tragedy. Some of his elements have been used in Greek tragedies and modern movies. The Greek play, Medea, and the modern movie, No Country for Old Men, use elements from Aristotle philosophy, while using similar and different techniques but both achieving an effective tragedy.
Poetry, with its focus on mimesis or imitation, has no moral value. While Plato sees reality as a shadow of a realm of pure Ideas (which in turn is copied by art), Aristotle sees reality as a process of partially realized forms moving towards their ideal realizations. Given this idea by Aristotle, the mimetic quality of art is redefined as the duplication of the living process of nature and its need to reach its potential form. Art, then, for Aristotle, does not become the enemy of society if the artist is loyal to the representation of the process of becoming in nature. Horace, like Aristotle and Plato, also brings to view a theory of poetry as mimesis.
Let us start with some similarities between the two that will lead us to understand why Aristotle deviated from Plato’s beliefs on the arts. Both of these thinkers believed in the idea or the unchanging rational essence, which shapes everything we know. To them, nothing can be understood without understanding the idea or form of it. Aristotle however was more tolerant towards art and tried to rationalize the tragedies, for example, rather than reject them as Plato did. Even though, he did not explicitly say that he was countering Plato’s theories about art, in his writings that was what he did.