As stated before Nietzsche was a philosopher who was mostly focused on criticizing the common moral schemes, which included Christianity, Kantianism and Utilitarianism (Nietzsche, n.d.). While he was a firm criticizer of morality his goal was not to destroy the very idea of morality, but a re-evaluation of commonly held morals. Also in his many works, Nietzsche empathizes self-improvement and overcoming obstacles, like his famous quote from his book “Ecce Homo” “what does not kill me, makes me stronger” (Wicks, 2014). When relating to his criticisms of religions, most notably Christianity, in Nietzsche’s famous “God is dead” speech, he noted that modern science and other factors that had metaphorically killed god, which at the time served
However, Nietzsche’s idea of the powerful forcing their will on common people resonates with me. It is something we see in our modern society, wealthy people seem to have a higher influence over the average American. Examples of powerful people controlling others are found in politics, economy, media, and religion. Common people are lead to think in certain ways that the powerful need them to. Nietzsche said that people will only be equal as long as they are equal in force and talent, people who have a higher social group are more influential in decisions because average people look to them for information. The thing I do not agree with Nietzsche on his view as Christianity as a weakness because religion is a main cause of people’s decision
While petty, one of my main inquiries of Tweed’s book comes from his definition of religion. In chapter 3, Tweed says that he wanted to use the term suprahuman for his definition in order to “avoid narrower alternatives-such as God, gods, or spiritual beings-and to respect the multiple ways that those forces are imagined” (Tweed 73). One question that could possibly be raised is why did Tweed decide to use the term suprahuman instead of a term such as transcendent. Transcendent is a more common term than suprahuman when it comes to religion. Additionally, the term transcendent does not have the same limitations as terms such as gods, or spiritual beings. Transcendent deals with things that a considered to be higher than what can be attained or accessed on a normal, natural level, whether it be with an object, concept, phenomena, entity, etc. Nevertheless, Tweed should be acknowledged for recognizing these limitations and subsequently avoiding them in the creation of
Friedrich Nietzsche is recognized for being one of the most influential German philosophers of the modern era. He is known for his works on genealogy of morality, which is a way to study values and concepts. In Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche mentions that values and concepts have a history because of the many different meanings that come with it. Nietzsche focused on traditional ethical theories, especially those rooted in religion. Not being a religious man, he believed that human life has no moral purpose except for the significance that human beings give it.
The first reason for this would be because Nietzsche believes that Socrates and philosophy have killed art, and he also believes we do not need the truth because we have art and music. In “On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” Nietzsche says that science is part of the “columbarium of concepts” (Pg. 150), this meaning simply that concepts kill, and since Nietzsche believes the truth is a concept, and then in turn he is saying the truth kills.
In Twilight of the Idols Nietzsche discusses his views on Christianity, other philosophers, and authors of his time. Nietzsche’s main focus, however, is on Christianity and how its actions and views are means to an end. He uses eloquent diction that sometimes loses the reader (he makes up for his articulate word usage with elementary sentences which describe his views very efficiently) along with syntax which is very informal - for the time - to describe his views on subjects quite exquisitely. His logic is the logic which is always right; he never contradicts himself or makes a statement without support. Nietzsche’s use of rhetorical strategies [i.e. diction, syntax, and figures of speech] helps him to make his points and support them in a style which help him attain his underlying goal: to make the reader think.
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”.
Nietzsche: Philosophizing Without Categorizing. How are we to philosophize without "Ism?" For, although defining a person in terms of an Ism is dangerous--both because it encourages identification of the individual with the doctrine and because it denies her the possibility of becoming that, as a human, she is heir to--grouping people according to a doctrine to which they subscribe is a convenient mental shortcut. Although grouping people into verbal boxes entails the danger of eventually seeing all of the boxes as equal, or similar enough to make no difference, the necessity of seeing the totality of a single human being is impossible. And although the qualities of my existence, or anyone else's existence (an individual's isness), are constantly undergoing a process, both conscious and unconscious, of revaluation and change, the change is usually not great enough over short lengths of time to qualify as noticeable.
Fridreich Nietzsche writes in The Gay Science "God is dead....And we have killed him," (99, Existentialist Philosophy) referr...
Take a minute to relax. Enjoy the lightness, or surprising heaviness, of the paper, the crispness of the ink, and the regularity of the type. There are over four pages in this stack, brimming with the answer to some question, proposed about subjects that are necessarily personal in nature. All of philosophy is personal, but some philosophers may deny this. Discussed here are philosophers that would not be that silly. Two proto-existentialists, Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche, were keen observers of humanity, and yet their conclusions were different enough to seem contradictory. Discussed here will be Nietzsche’s “preparatory human being” and Kierkegaard’s “knight of faith”. Both are archetypal human beings that exist in accordance to their respective philosopher’s values, and as such, each serve different functions and have different qualities. Both serve the same purpose, though. The free spirit and the knight of faith are both human beings that brace themselves against the implosion of the god concept in western society.
“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.
First of all, from my interpretation of Nietzsche, modern humanity did not invent the idea of God. Rather the God had a functional role from his point of view. There is no doubt that, modern humanity had the idea of God, but in my opinion, this idea was like a heritage to the modern humanity from their ancestors. We should look at the earlier times of the history in order to understand the roots of the invention of God.
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
I know that there is one object on top of another object, even if it
Others still have pity for the poor and needy etc. Nietzsche dislikes religion especially Christianity because it encourages and promotes slave morality. Nietzsche says that we should be striving towards master morality, but Christianity has the completely opposite values to those of the master morality. For example, religion wants us to be like slaves and give things up instead of trying to be great. He talks about a slave revolt in morality, which leads to the dominance of slave values over master values.
When reading Nietzsche, we can pick up from him that he was very educated often better than most philosophers. Or so he thought. Although he had a very poor outlook on his culture and everyday society, he had very strong opinions when it came to humans and their actions. He made strong assumptions whether people agreed with him or not. An assumption such as, he believed most philosophers and researchers were not as educated as he was, which we pick up in his writings. Nietzsche’s main goal in his essays are to educate those on morality. First, Nietzsche believed that specific words and human actions have evolved over time to things they were never intended to become. Nietzsche