1) Nietzsche could have written The Gay Science differently. What justifies the style of composition he chose? More importantly, is his style of writing effective? What relation do you see between the style of his writing and the content of thought it expresses? Nietzsche's style of writing was a deliberate stylistic choice meant to hide the meaning of his work and philosophy from those who would not be able to understand it, and through there misunderstanding would abuse it. This writing style was also meant to help support and give meaning to Nietzsche's arguments on the nature of language and how language is, at its root a metaphor describing an object that is disconnected from us. Nietzsche's work broke down language to its metaphorical roots and explored the nature of how our language is disconnected from the objective reality around us. Nietzsche uses the metaphorical roots of our language to show that words and language our fundamentally disconnected because of the subjective nature of language. Nietzsche shows these metaphorical roots by showing how simple words and phrases that we use in our everyday life are really disconnected or at least removed by the barrier of language. Language is a serious of metaphor's all describing how an object subjectively appears to the individual. No language can describe what it is like to "be" that object, nor properly describe what it is that makes the object what it is. All language can do is provide a vehicle through which man can communicate what he is subjectively experiencing and relate it via a metaphor to another individual who will only get a idea of what is being described rather than an actual concrete description. 2) In sections 124, 343, and 377, Nietzsche claims that, following the death of God, human beings find themselves "in the horizon of the infinite," on the "open sea," and "homeless." What are the consequences of the death of God? With reference to section 347, discuss the ambiguity of this new found freedom. How might it terrify some people and empower others? The consequences for the death of god are far reaching and and many in Nietzsche's work. Christianity sparked the death of God as most of us know him through the actions of Martin Luther. Luther's desire to give the common man the ability to understand and read the bible brought a end to the churches monopoly on morality and brought the "divine" to the common man making the common man "divine".
In terms of artists and their influences, the case of Nietzsche and Wagner has been the focal point of discussion between many great academic minds of the last century. The controversy surrounding the relationship has led many to postulate that the eventual break between the two men may have contributed to the untimely death of Wagner in 1882, and Nietzsche's eight-year writing spurt from 1883 - 1888.
”The History of Sexuality” is a three-volumes book, published around 1976 and 1984 by the french historical philosopher Michel Foucault. The three volumes are “An Introduction” (which later is known also as “The Will of Knowledge”), “The Use of the Self” and “The Care of the Self”.
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...
For him, “life itself is essentially appropriation, injury, overpowering of what is alien and weaker, suppression, hardness, imposition of one’s own forms, incorporation and at least, at its mildest, exploitation.” That is to say, our desire for power is unavoidable and an inherent part of our nature. On the other hand, the abnegation from “injury, violence, and exploitation and placing one’s will on a par with that of someone else” (instead of propagating one’s own will over others’) is “a will to the denial of life [and] a principle of disintegration and decay.” If one considers life and the act of living itself as the will to power, then master morality’s affinity to honour strength and self-promotion would be the more compelling morality for Nietzsche. This is not precisely the case however, as master morality lacks a certain subtlety as opposed to the act of enslaving oneself, which can be an “indispensable means of spiritual discipline and cultivation.” In any case, Nietzsche’s appreciation of the advantages of master morality is not as intuitive of a sentiment as it is to other modern
Babette E. Babich talks about Nietzsche’s style in her article “Self-Deconstruction: Nietzsche’s Philosophy as Style.” In her article she states that, “Nietzsche’s style grants neither the casual reader nor the diligent commentator an automatic access to the text” (Babich 105). From what Babich says here, she is trying to allow her audience to know that Nietzsche’s work makes a challenge for the reader to digest.
Sexuality over the years has been defined and reshaped in many ways by different researchers and experts. In the CNN article, “Being Gay is not a Choice,” James Hormel defines sexuality as something that you are born with and cannot hide or ignore your true identity. In the article, Hormel recalls the times in his life where he felt alone and when he hid the truth. Hormel goes on to state how he “spent the first 35 years of my life trying real hard not to be gay”(Hormel, pg. 1). However, despite Hormel 's views I disagree with this article in many ways as it shows little evidence on how someone could in fact be born gay. An individual decides his identity and sexuality, which in most cases is tied together with how one is raised and the environment in which one is raised in. John Hormel’s article on sexuality can be countered by an article written John D’Emilio. His article, “Capitalism
Wagner’s newfound focus on redemption rather than overcoming, yes, would have upset Nietzsche. But as most can relate, seeing poppy boy bands remain on the top of the charts over true artists; Nietzsche in that what he considered to be Wagner’s weakest moment become his most shining, must have been infuriating for him. The wrath is not focused solely on Wagner however, but as well at the masses that gathered to worship at his alter; Wagner himself was a slave to Wagnerianism and European decadence. Nietzsche recalls a story of Goethe reflecting on what dangers romanticism the most, to which he though ““suffocating of the rumination of moral and religious absurdities.” In brief: Parsifal.” (EH, “The Case of Wagner, 3). The performance so intertwined with the symbolism of a moral-religious world that it distracts from its content. Nietzsche almost asks us to strip these connotations and motifs away to see what stands. In a non-Christian light, does Parsifal even exist? Deconstructed and without the pieces, the many props and abundant imagery, could the opera even be written? “The musician now becomes an actor” Nietzsche says of Wagner; more performer than composer. European decadence has burdened music by forcing it away from its focus on life to the escape from living.
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.
“Death, the end of life: the time when someone or something dies” (Merriam-Webster, 2014). The definition of death is quite simple, the end of life is inescapable. I chose to write about death and impermanence because it is something we all must inevitably face. People often deal with death in a number of different ways. Although it is something that we must eventually face, it can be hard to come to terms with because the idea can be hard to grasp. Some of us fear it, others are able to accept it, either way we all must eventually face it. In this essay I will look at two different literary works about death and impermanence and compare and contrast the different elements of the point of view, theme, setting, and symbolism. The comparison of these particular works will offer a deeper look into words written by the authors and the feelings that they experiencing at that particular time.
The first is that Nietzsche is trying to depict to us what he thinks is true, giving us another outlook on truth and how to perceive it. The second option is that Nietzsche isn’t telling us what he believes and is being untruthful throughout the whole book because he has chosen untruth over truth, which he had been asking philosophers why not untruth along. This tactic pressures the reader to make their own opinion and perceptions about the book instead of believing everything the author says. Then Nietzsche turns the tables and says to read the writings of a person as if it was a memoir and that if philosophers are truly influenced by their unconscious instincts then that is how we should read all of philosophy. This will allow the reader to search deeper into Nietzsche’s personal life and views to discover a third interpretation of the book.
He begins by looking at the very common views of death that are held by most people in the world, and tells us that he will talk of death as the "unequivocal and permanent end to our existence" and look directly at the nature of death itself (1). The first view that
Nietzsche wrote a piece called “God Is Dead”. Nietzsche wrote this piece based upon his view point of Christianity. Nietzsche rejected the Christian morality and believed that Christianity in Western Europe was heading into the wrong direction. “Christianity is Platonism for the people” was said by Nietzsche because, Plato believed that there was a better or pure world and could be accomplished by going back to the world we used to live. In another sense, Plato focused on a past life and ideas that came from that life to have a successful pure life. Nietzsche’s view of religion, he believed that by focusing on the scientism part of the religion, religion all together was moving from bad to worse. By saying “God Is Dead” which can be judged
Intellectual thought since Nietzsche has found itself one way or another addressing the death of God. Most of this thinking, however, has taken place from an atheistic starting point and has not considered its own presuppositions. It strives to find consistent outworking from these presuppositions and to eradicate the shadow of God carried over from the Enlightenment tradition because of its grounding in a theistic worldview. However, the outcome and implications of thinking after the death of God has been found hideous and many attempts have been made to transcend the absurdity there.
He believed that the human body wasn’t done with evolving and we aren’t fully developed into what we are fully capable of. He says, “The death of God must be followed by a long twilight of piety and nihilism. Zarathustra 's gift of the overman is given to a mankind not aware of the problem to which the overman is the solution” (Nietzsche). People aren’t aware of the superman because they are too caught up in religion and democracy. This prevents people from thinking above the “herd” that Nietzsche talked about when describing the Christian faith. The superman is one who has complete free will and thinking, he does not look for what other find enjoyable instead seeks for what he or she wants. Nietzsche compares apes to men and asked the question of whether we are a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. “What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment” (Nietzsche). He is saying that we might be just as underdeveloped as an ape to what we are today as compared to us as the superman. This way of thinking shows that he felt that the human body could achieve so much more that what people think it is capable of, that art and culture are needed to continue development of the
Nietzsche evaluates the world in terms of how it really is. He recognizes that people are inherently different and frames his philosophy accordingly. This, his philosophical paradigm is superior in terms of its realism. Furthering that argument, Nietzsche also shows that he wants to preserve societal advancement. Nietzsche was primarily concerned what society would stagnate if we settled for mediocrity. While his philosophy may be somewhat elitist, it mandates societal advancement because it allows the elites to rise to the top and push society forward. There is link to Christianity. Societies cannot push forward with this notion of God. Christianity, with its conception of transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient and a just God, denies and negates too much that is valuable in this world. There was a direct link to Christianity and how there was a real manifestation of the will to power and that certain individuals have revealed themselves. He accounts for his own ethics. Nietzsche accounts for all people in society and provides all people the equal opportunity to maximize their own power. While power differences are inevitable based upon individual differences, all people have the same opportunity to Will to Power. This creates the basis of his ethics as