so why, in philosophies like those from Kant, does reason have to subvert emotions or desires to a position of inferiority, rather than work with emotions? Emotions, passions, senses, or whatever one may choose to call them, are fundamentally a part of being, and as such should not be seen as deceptions of reality – emotions are part of reality.
A more emotional, or intuitive, approach to philosophy is needed discontinue the approach to reason as a great panacea capable of transcendent understanding. Nietzsche’s alternative to rationality and reason is what he calls a “return to nature.” A return to nature answers the question of being in a way that many philosophers since Plato have not be able to achieve, and resists a desire for greater
…show more content…
90) The terms “nature” and “naturalness” are particularly stand-out, because of the connotations the words hold in the context of Nietzsche’s critiques of reason. “Nature” is not part of the field of reason as much as it is part of emotionality and passions – In many ways, “nature,” as Nietzsche uses it here, seems reminiscent of his use of “instincts.” In both, he brings greater humanization to emotions and subtly detracts humanity from reason. “Great tasks” is also peculiar, in that it adds greater importance to the emotions. These “great tasks” inspire people not to deduce emotions for logical meaning, but rather encourages them to follow their personal intuitions, which will guide their passions into …show more content…
Philosophical reason, as Nietzsche believes it to exist, is a silhouette of the human experience, one void of all the unfavorable but essential flaws that come with human emotions. Nietzsche describes this type of philosophically vapid society as one that is a “tame, mediocre, emasculated society, in which a natural human being, who comes from the mountains or from the adventures of the sea, necessarily degenerates into a criminal” (Twilight p. 86). Sexist language aside, the point about a “natural human being” still remains: the natural human being isn’t one who is necessarily educated in the philosophy of reason, but one who approaches life with a unique robustness that centers around his own desires and his own emotions. It’s not a life in which he weighs the outcomes of his actions through intense rational introspect, but in which he follows his passions to do what feels right. In that, there is a great sense of individuality and power, power that is uniquely human and personal. In a return to nature, there is vigor and rawness in emotions, which, when not hampered by reason, are
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.
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”.
Throughout the Romanticism period, human’s connection with nature was explored as writers strove to find the benefits that humans receive through such interactions. Without such relationships, these authors found that certain aspects of life were missing or completely different. For example, certain authors found death a very frightening idea, but through the incorporation of man’s relationship with the natural world, readers find the immense utility that nature can potentially provide. Whether it’d be as solace, in the case of death, or as a place where one can find oneself in their own truest form, nature will nevertheless be a place where they themselves were derived from. Nature is where all humans originated,
...d of a Buddhist koan, which is intended to break the hold of logic on the mind. However, rather than breaking the hold of logic on the mind, Nietzsche, with his jibing remarks, swashbuckling writing style, self-contradictions, and secrecy, is intending to break the hold of socially determined "masks," or Isms, from the perceptions of the new philosopher who will arise the day after tomorrow. Nietzsche shows us how to philosophize without Isms. The only question remaining is whether we are strong enough to take his advice.
The book Ecce Homo seems to be an account of Nietzsche establishing a validation of his whole being. This whole book is an opportunity for him to critique himself, and he finds himself more than superb. ."..I have been told how getting used to my writings spoils ones taste. One simply can no longer endure other books, least of all philosophical works" (719). This writing is his way of not becoming perpetually problematic. He wants to make very clear that he is the pivot point around which all change will come and that his goal is to have all things established and idolized ruined. "Whoever uncovers morality also uncovers the disvalue of all values that are and have been believed: he no longer sees anything venerable in the most venerated..." (790). The review of his various works is a way to make sure that the reader cannot accuse him of being something he is not and therefore test the reader's true understanding of his nature. His ideal reader would be one that was strong enough to understand the boldness of an immoralist.
“Has he got lost? Did he lose his way like a child? Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? Emigrated?” No the madman says; “we have killed him – you and I. All of us are his murderers” This exchange encapsulates the aphorism that underpins much of Nietzsche’s thought; that “God is dead”. But what does this mean - What is Nietzsche telling us by claiming that we have murdered God? This essay is going to attempt to try and understand what Nietzsche argues has changed and what hasn’t with the death of God and to examine his critique of 19th century morality in the context of the 21st century politics and see if he offers a constructive alternative to the way we engage in political discourse.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s “On the Genealogy of Morality” includes his theory on man’s development of “bad conscience.” Nietzsche believes that when transitioning from a free-roaming individual to a member of a community, man had to suppress his “will to power,” his natural “instinct of freedom”(59). The governing community threatened its members with punishment for violation of its laws, its “morality of customs,” thereby creating a uniform and predictable man (36). With fear of punishment curtailing his behavior, man was no longer allowed the freedom to indulge his every instinct. He turned his aggressive focus inward, became ashamed of his natural animal instincts, judged himself as inherently evil, and developed a bad conscience (46). Throughout the work, Nietzsche uses decidedly negative terms to describe “bad conscience,” calling it ugly (59), a sickness (60), or an illness (56); leading some to assume that he views “bad conscience” as a bad thing. However, Nietzsche hints at a different view when calling bad conscience a “sickness rather like pregnancy” (60). This analogy equates the pain and suffering of a pregnant woman to the suffering of man when his instincts are repressed. Therefore, just as the pain of pregnancy gives birth to something joyful, Nietzsche’s analogy implies that the negative state of bad conscience may also “give birth” to something positive. Nietzsche hopes for the birth of the “sovereign individual” – a man who is autonomous, not indebted to the morality of custom, and who has regained his free will. An examination of Nietzsche’s theory on the evolution of man’s bad conscience will reveal: even though bad conscience has caused man to turn against himself and has resulted in the stagnation of his will, Ni...
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
For many centuries religion seemed to be the most accurate source of truth and value to life. As humanity started to question the foundation religion had established, science began to unfold its own perspective of life. From then on humanity juggled ideas of conscience, morality, and the true meaning of life. On one hand science began to explain the world around us in a more empirical and understanding perception to humanity; with the use of emerging technologies and theories. On the other hand religion outlined a way of life and possibly another approach to the understanding of our existence. The question lay in the hands of the individual, do we allow science and/or religion to give us a value to our life or do we need to look further from the perspective of the masses. In “The Gay Science.” Friedrich Nietzsche outlines the evolution of mankind from religion to science and finally his ideal value of life. Nietzsche believes that neither science nor religion are adequate enough to live by. Nietzsches argument holds some consistent ground against science but does not fully refute it. Science holds the key in holding a balance between the unexplainable and quantifiable to put balance and meaning in someones life.
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.
ABSTRACT: Spinoza's philosophy has a practical aim. The Ethics can be interpreted as a guide to a happy, intellectually flourishing life. Spinoza gives us principles about how to guard against the power of passions which prevent the mind from attaining understanding. In what follows, I consider Spinoza's techniques for guarding against the passions by turning to Jonathan Bennett's criticisms of Spinozistic psychotherapy. Bennett finds three central techniques for freeing oneself from the passions: (i) reflecting on determinism; (ii) separating and joining; and (iii) turning passions into actions. Bennett believes that all of these techniques are in some sense flawed. I contend that Bennett offers good criticism against technique (i), but his criticisms against (ii) and (iii) are unfounded.
Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals can be assessed in regards to the three essays that it is broken up into. Each essay derives the significance of our moral concepts by observing
In this essay we will embrace Nietzsche’s philosophy for the sake of the fact that he proposed that God is dead, life is worthless, and fate ultimately surpasses faith. In the end, he provided for many, an alternative philosophy of life that became life affirming. On the other end, the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche has many diversions, for a countless number of reasons. Undoubtedly, most of those in disagreement to Nietzsche’s philosophy base their objections on a misperceived threat to their unwavering doctrine of religious faith. To make this evident, we begin with one of philosophy’s most argumentative, yet widely misunderstood quotes.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. "Human, All Too Human by Friedrich Nietzsche: From the Soul of Artists and Writers." Classic Authors.net / Great Literature Online. Web. 18 Feb. 2011. .
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.