Friedrich Nietzsche saw himself surrounded by a world of human constructs. Humanity had become a herd, clinging to these concepts like cattle grazing at a favorite patch of grass. Individual identity struggled to exist. The morality of the mediocre reigned supreme. Nietzsche lived in a dead world.
Milan Kundera lives in the world today. His world is dead much like Nietzsche's. Denial is the focal point of society. Society assimilates difference and denies what cannot be assimilated. In his novel, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Kundera relies on the word kitsch to describe the force of denial. "Kitsch is a absolute denial of shit" (Kundera 248). Kitsch is an inescapable part of the human condition.
Though Nietzsche was not aware of the word, much of his philosophy is a reaction to the concept of kitsch. He wanted to revitalize passion, raw sensation, in hopes that he and others could transcend kitsch and relate authentically to one another: to be masters. Yet as Nietzsche attacks kitsch he also understands its necessity. He does not seek to destroy kitsch (like Kundera); he merely wishes to place kitsch in a new context, to put it in perspective. Many years separate the worlds of Nietzsche and Kundera, but the fundamental questions of their existential struggle seems to be the same: can one oppose kitsch and succeed, or survive?
Before delving into the possibility of opposing kitsch it is necessary to derive a clear working definition of kitsch. This definition relies heavily upon Kundera's vision of kitsch, and, therefore, any argument presented to demonstrate authentic opposition to kitsch pertains solely to the following definition.
Kitsch claims to speak to some absolu...
... middle of paper ...
...ore his readers is to accept shit as part of his philosophical answer.
Works Cited
Brown, Norman O. "The Excremental Vision". Life Against Death. Wesleyan University Press, 1959. p.179-201. Rpt in Swift: A Collection of Critical Essays. Ernest Tuveson, Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc., 1964. p. 31-54.
Kaufmann, Walter. Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist,
Antichrist. New York: Meridian Books, 1956.
Kundera, Milan. The Unbearable Lightness of Being. New York: Harper and Row Inc., 1984.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil. Walter Kaufmann trans. New York: Random House Inc., 1989.
---. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Rpt. in The Portable Nietzsche. Walter Kaufmann trans. New York: Viking Press, 1956.
---. The Will to Power. Walter Kaufmann trans. and ed.
New York: Random House Inc., 1967.
The Theme of Jorneying in For A Journey by Alan Brownjohn and To The Virginian Voyage by Michael Drayton
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”.
Friedrich Nietzsche certainly serves as a model for the single best critic of religion. At the other end of this spectrum, Jonathan Edwards emerges as his archrival in terms of religious discourse. Nietzsche argues that Christianity’s stance toward all that is sensual is that grounded in hostility, out to tame all that rests on nature, or is natural, akin to Nietzsche’s position in the world and his views. Taking this into account, Edwards’s views on Christianity should be observed in context targeted at those who agree with his idea, that G-d is great and beyond the capacity of human reason.
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
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.
and indeed states that he is "a man who is the abstract of all faults
Nietzsche begins the essay with a question about fame “Is fame actually nothing but the tastiest morsel of our self-love?” saying how fame is like a moment of illumination “it has been linked to the rarest of men and to their rarest moments. These are moments of sudden illumination” he then goes on using metaphors to describe the “illumination” and man’s relationship with fame. Believing that with fame people feel immortal because culture dictates that anything great will live on forever and the feeling of immortality will have people thinking the world is their’s to own “From now on humanity needs him.” “he believes himself to be immortal as the man of this moment.” Later in the essay he furthers his
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...
Each person has their own way of seeing life and knowing what is best for them. The fact that some people know what they are doing is wrong, it is terrible. This happens in the story,” The Hitchhiking Game” by Milan Kundera. Two individuals lose all boundaries when they play new roles in the game. The game is more important than their own consciences and responsibilities. It brings forward a reality that when people fall in love, they forget about others and pay more attention to the one they are with; Nietzsche’s would urge this couple to reevaluate all values.
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.
On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, Nietzsche. United States of America: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2001. 1171-1179. Print
...ot resent during Nietzsche's lifetime. However his ideas of how individual perspectives and will are shaped or influenced within a given culture are very much observable in these media forms. Mass culture as propagated by the media has imposed certain moral considerations and values on individuals that they may not necessarily have subscribed to. In effect this has led to individuals how function like zombies, following blindly concepts carried by the media as the only real issues. The mass culture advanced by the media has advanced some form of complacency that has restricted issues under consideration and that need attention by human beings. The scope of human thinking, as well as their autonomy in making decisions, has been taken away as individuals continue to operate like robots being directed by other entities, perhaps for easy political and social management.
Nietzsche?s most famous statement is, without a doubt, that ?God is dead? (GS 108/125, Z P 2, etc.). Through many years of being quoted, contemporary society seems to have lost the significance of such a profound statement. Perhaps the most frightening aspect of this statement is that ?we have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers? (GS 125). It is important to remember that Nietzsche did not believe this to be a literal event. Instead, he explains ?that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable? (GS 343). Such disbelief has begun to cast morality, indeed mankind?s meaning, into doubt. Without God, how can universal moral truths be justified? Where is the meaning of man?
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
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