God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?
On the outside this looks like the typical God/ No God argument that can only leave a wake of anger, hatred, and destroyed cities. The statement “God is dead” is enough to start a conflict in itself, and rightfully so. How can you successfully win or lose an argument that is solely based off of personal experiences and per speculation. Many people would not take even a passing glance at the nucleus of what Nietzsche’s argument is, but it parallels the likes of Descantes and Plato. In fact, if history was reversed I believe that these three men would still show parallels with one another. “God is dead” is not an attack on those
…show more content…
Socrates stated that knowledge comes from divine insight; that it is not learned. So it is in the eyes of Socrates that humans cannot possibly understand or know what is just, because knowledge would have to come from a divine insight. It is that divine insight that makes the statement that “God is dead” false. “God is dead” was stated because we believe that we no longer needed the deities for the understanding of what is just or moral.
What if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more' [...] Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine
It is that belief (that we believe we no longer need deities for the understanding of what is moral) that is highlighted by the quote above. The problem with morality is the argument of who decides what is moral, and it is this problem where absolutism meets perspectivism. Firstly, absolutism may refer to the claim that there exists a universally valid moral system, which applies to
In Frederick Nietzsche’s The Death of God, his madman cries, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us?”(The Madman) To Nietzsche, the phrase "God is dead" is not to be take literally in the sense that he believed in an actual God who existed and then died. Rather, he is implying that the Christian God is no longer the go to for absolute moral principles. In a way, Nietzsche’s The Death of God is explaining that because people are starting to no longer believe in god, their morality isn't tied up in the idea of some imaginary being. It seems that Nietzsche's intended purpose was to do away with the traditional idea of “Christian” morality as he believed that because people were evolving to a place where they could create their own morality, God was unnecessary and irrelevant.
The difference between absolutism and objectivism is that where objectivists believe that there are universal moral principles in which people of all ethical backgrounds and cultures have the validity to follow, absolutists believe that there are underlying values within these beliefs that strictly cannot ever be over-ridden, violated or broken under any circumstances (REF). Furthermore, while absolutists believe in this notion that moral principles are ‘exception-less’, objectivists strongly follow the notion that life is situational and that we as humans have to adapt accordingly to the variables that arise, take them into account, and then make a decision accordingly (REF). Within this introduction of variables applicable to any situation, it is therefore believed that each moral principle must be weighed against each other to produce the best possible outcome, and this is where the overriding of values occurs in an objectivists view, and where an absolutist would disregard these circumstances.
“he shows the god’s beliefs are inconsistent but because testing his own beliefs about what the god’s pronouncement means proves to be the operative sense in which the god himself can be “refuted.” So that when Socrates hopes to exhibit through his examinations of the politicians, poets and artisans is just that, since there is someone wiser than Socrates, he has reasons for believing the god means something other than what he appears to first say” (Carvalho 41-42). If Socrates was pious then he would have taken the words of the God Apollo literally instead of trying to prove them wrong. He constantly tries to find someone who is wiser than himself instead of believing it at first. When arguing that he does believe in the Gods this argument only causes more disbelief and shows the crowd that he is lying to them. Socrates gets tangled up in his own argument which causes others to see him as someone who is untruthful, when appealing to a large group of jurors it is unethical to lie to them because if they figure it out then he has no chance of receiving a moderate
God has caused so many deaths that He could have recused himself from and to stop this nightmare. This was one of the reasons why Elie was losing trust in God. I contrast death with peace because when people die out of old age for example they say rest in peace but during the hollocaust it wasn’t like that. Jews were dying of discrimination and racism. This picture shows a white dove in the sky.
Fridreich Nietzsche writes in The Gay Science "God is dead....And we have killed him," (99, Existentialist Philosophy) referr...
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...
...o die, everything is growing farther and farther apart toward a state of decay; and as it goes, so goes hope, so goes man’s faith in what he can see, think, and reason. This is the hard reality that becomes apparent; if ethical action is limited to man’s thought about morals and principles that are, according to man, “absolute”, then man may be the most arrogant and ignorant of God’s creation.
Typically many religious people claim that ethics and morality relies on what God rules them to be and fail to see that morality can still be just as significant to a person that doesn't believe in God. Theists, followers of God presume religion to be a substantial reason for our moral conduct. Nonbelievers such as atheists are still capable of understanding the difference between what is right and wrong without religion. John, believes that if there wasn't a higher power to give us the set rules and reasons of how to behave then anything we do would be measured equally. Whereas Andrea, who is against this theory points out that God is not the key for having moral values. Her argument seems to be more convincing because an atheist can still to do the right thing based on their own interest if it has a rational explanation for moral values. The only difference is that non-believers don't have a supreme ruler to measure the intensity of how moral their actions are. Doing the right or wrong thing should be justified on a level of whether or not your actions hurt or harm someone in any w...
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?
So, first, why does Socrates make such a bold statement? Verily it is nothing short of his own death sentence. The people who accused and voted against Socrates, have decreed it that he is to die for impiety toward the gods and of corrupting the youth (Plato), in addition, it is known that Socrates has as a companion of sorts a "prophetic voice" to keep his philosophical endeavors regulated. Socrates himself states that this presence has not opposed him at an...
His novel, God is Dead, which addressed this “problem of modernity”, was first published in 1882, stirring up much controversy in society. In Nietzsche’s novel, the Madman announces, “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.” This quote is not attempting to enforce the idea that a divine, all-powerful being, which governs human nature, has physically died, but rather that this being failed to be in existence in the beginning.
The argument from objectivity of morality also advocates the Divine Command Theory. It states that moral standards are objective, separate from all culture’s judgment. It also states that they’re universal. Thus, morality can only be objective and universal if it depends on the commands of God. In response, morality is solely dependent on God’s commands.
In Plato’s Apology Socrates’ was on trial for corrupting the youth and for spreading atheism. Socrates defended himself in the trial saying that he was just performing a service to the god that complimented him saying that he was wiser than anyone else. Ultimately this defense did not work, therefore he lost the trial. He was sentenced to death. Most people would be sad, scared, or distraught over this sentencing, but not Socrates. He didn’t view death as a bad thing, he almost welcomed death. Socrates welcomes death in a different way than Christians. Indeed people should welcome death, but not the way Socrates did. People should welcome death the way that Christians do, the right way. I believe that the Christians have the correct view of death, and that Socrates view of death is flawed. Socrates says that we should believe that death is the biggest blessing to man. He also says that we should not fear what we do not know. I find that hard to believe because I believe that the opposite to be true as well.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s, “God is dead” idea is not exactly what is sounds, or appears to be at first. Although it may seem to be a very “antichrist”, or a “anti religious” statement it actually pertains to the dependency our society has on religion, and “how the idea of God has lost it’s full creative force, its full power”(5). The main argument that Friedrich Nietzsche has with this idea is that ...
In his book, The Gay Science, Friedrich Nietzsche famously states that God is dead. Passages 108 (New battles), 125 (The madman), 153 (Homo poeta) and 343 (How to understand our cheerfulness) all deal with a particular aspect of this assertion. Passage 108 states that God is dead, but that it may be a long time before we acknowledge this. Passage 125 reiterates that God is dead and then goes on to say that we have killed him. Passage 153 shows homo poeta taking culpable responsibility for the death of God.