Category: Friedrich Nietzsche

Neither Marx, nor Mill, nor Nietzsche find the present condition of society to be advantageous to human flourishing. For each, the present condition of human affairs reduces human beings to something less than fully human. This essay will discuss three different interpretations of the source of this development from Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill and Fredrich Nietzsche. Marx explains this demise of human flourishing as ‘alienation’, Mill as; ‘conformity’, and Nietzsche as; ‘slave morality’. The first part of this essay will explore Marx’s concept of alienation, which suggests that the fact humans have detached themselves from their labour means they have reverted to being ‘animal-beings’, only finding pleasure once they have sold their labour for a wage. Following this, I will discuss Mill’s theory of conformity and how conforming to societal norms denies the exploration of genius. The final part of this essay will look at Nietzsche’s idea of slave morality which argues that humans have become less than human due to the fact they require an oppressor in order to know whether they are ‘good’. This essay will provide a comparison and contrast (where necessary) of the three theories leading to a conclusion that the theorists opinion that current society is not advantageous to human flourishing is based on their own social and political backgrounds meaning that the various overlapping views of all three may not have any relevance in today’s society.

Karl Marx was born to a Jewish lawyer in Trier, 1818 and studied law at the universities of Bonn and Berlin respectively. After moving to, and then being expelled from France he moved to Brussels. Following his expulsion from Brussels, Marx moved to Paris and then Cologne eventually finding himself in London. His development of The Communist Manifesto influenced his interpretation of the restriction of human flourishing.

Marx suggests that man is a “species-being, not only in that he practically and theoretically makes as his object his own species as well as that of things, but also in that as a present and living species he considers himself to be a universal and consequently free being”. Marx believes that humans become less than fully human when they are unable to own the object of his labour and no longer view that labour as a manifestation of his life. Marx defined this decline of human flourishing as ‘alienation’. He proposed that mankind (as workers) have become detached from their labour and consequent products of that labour, suggesting that the labour exerted is used to gain wages. He argues that the labour is simply a representation of earnings, we are alienated from work, it is external to us rather than being a part of our nature. Therefore, we are not fulfilled by our work, just our desire to gain wages. He states that money has alienated us from the products of our labour since it “reduces all human qualities to quantitative, interchangeable values devoid of any specific value”. In a Capitalist society, humans sell their labour in return for money meaning they do not own the product of their hard work. Shlomo Avineri deciphers this in ‘The Social and Political thought of Karl Marx’, stating that “the product of his [the workers] activity is not the object of his activity. What he produces for himself is wages”. This means that man has alienated himself from being truly human as he cannot enjoy and own the fruits of his labour.

The concept of alienation imagines man as an “object creator” and suggests that once this has been taken away from the worker, “he retains only his biological, animal-like functions”. This is expanded saying, “life begins for him [the worker] where the activity ceases, at table, in the public house, in bed”. This acts as a disadvantage to human flourishing due to the fact humans are not viewing their work as a manifestation of their life, instead they alienate themselves from their labour and only view themselves as living when they are outside of work. Marx believes this causes the worker to become something less than fully human as the worker begins to “feel himself to be freely active only in his animal function; eating, drinking and procreating”. The human becomes an animal-being which has detached himself from his work finding joy only when in leisure.

There appears to be a paradox surrounding alienation making it difficult to escape. Marx states that “the less you are and the less you express your life, the more you have, the greater is your alienated self and the greater is the saving of alienated being”. This suggests that the less human you are (and more alienated you are), the more wealth you will have. This is because you work longer and produce more but continue to sell your labour for a wage. The worker has more in terms of wealth but has sacrificed his ability to be fully human. We therefore live in abstractions to allow ourselves to pretend that what we are doing is necessary i.e. selling our labour and earning a wage is necessary to survive.

Marx’s theory of alienation could be considered similar to Fredrich Nietzsche’s idea of slave morality. Nietzsche’s view that humans have become something less than fully human due to their need to be oppressed can be compared to Marx’s view that humans are no longer accepting their labour to be a manifestation of their lives. In Marx’s case, the labour and need for a wage can be seen as the oppressor causing humans to disassociate themselves from work and the products made due to a feeling of labour being a means to an end. These theories differ from John Stuart Mill who suggested that it is society’s willingness to conform as a whole, rather than the individual’s need for financial and moral stability for the demise of human flourishing.

John Stuart Mill was a philosopher born in London, 1806. Most recognised for his theory on Utilitarianism, Mills understanding of the condition of human decline is “conformity”. He believes that society naturally prefers to conform due to a stifling of individuality extending to both legal and social realms. Mill was taught by Jeremy Bentham who was considered a political radical during his time. For example, he was an advocate for the abolition of slavery, equal rights for woman and the abolition of the death penalty. These seemingly non-conformist views influenced Mills theory that humans can be considered less than if they conform to societal norms. Mill believed that there is a danger of conformity, suggesting that there is a risk of society becoming identical and monocultural. Aristotle agrees with this view stating that conformity stifles genius whereas non-conformity can promote individuality and excellence due to people discovering new ways of living that could benefit society. This could be similar to Nietzsche’s idea of alienation. The workers, all alienated from their labour and no longer with an individual product acting as their life manifestation, with one common goal of gaining a wage could be seen as conforming to societal norms. All workers have conformed to the need for a wage consequently becoming animal-beings. It could be said that the condition of human society that reduces human being to less than is an alienation from labour that then leads to society conforming to a common goal (in this case, a salary).

Mill was a thinker of self-cultivation who suggested that he point of freedom was to figure out who you are and once discovered, live that life. In order to discover who you are meant to be, Mill suggest society engage in self-experimentation. This could be considered a good method for both the individual and society as a whole because if successful, the individual is free and living an authentic life however, if unsuccessful, or if the life chosen is not sustainable, society will then know to avoid that way of living.

Mills theory can be seen as a rebuttal of Calvinism which stated that humans are good as long as they are obedient. Mill, on the other hand, believes that non-conformists may discover a different and potentially better way of living. An example of non-conformity benefitting society in the long run could be seen in the fight for same-sex marriage, had it not been for various individuals campaigning for the equal rights of LGBT+ people, they might still not have the right to marry each other which seems wrong in today’s society but 50 years ago was viewed as the way society was conducted. This suggests that diversity is necessary to challenge societal norms and promote social progress. There are ways that contemporary society is tricked into conformity through various advertising campaigns and product descriptions. For example, the online shop ‘rebellious fashion’ encourages its buyers to “Be A Rebel!” however, this appeal to all women to rebel against societal clothing norms forces shoppers to unknowingly conform with the group of people who consider themselves rebels for shopping at this site. Therefore, Mills theory may be most applicable to today out of the three, due to humanity’s continued desire to be unique, the struggle to avoid conformity in modern life has resulted in many accidentally conforming.

Fredrich Nietzsche was born in 1844. Following a life of studying, teaching and writing philosophy, he eventually suffered from insanity and died in 1990. Nietzsche believed that there were two fundamental types of morality, these being; ‘master morality’ and ‘slave morality’. Master morality stems from the notions of nobility and power. The Masters are “strong, creative and wealthy”. The noble type judges that “what is harmful to me, is harmful itself”. It is value-creating and determines what is good based on whether the act benefits the person. Master morality is therefore ‘sentiment’ and based on feeling. The slaves, however, are oppressed by the masters and are “weak, poor and resentful”. Slave morality is therefore ‘ressentiment’ meaning based in resentment. Despite this, slave morality is not simply the inverse of master morality as master morality is evaluating what is good or bad whereas slave morality is differentiating good and evil. Slave morality suggests that a person needs oppression in order to know if they are good or evil. A slavely moral person requires an enemy, they say, in effect; “My goodness, do I suffer! You make me suffer, you are evil, and I am the opposite of you and therefore am good”. Nietzsche suggests that slave morality is essentially a reaction, stating that “in order to come about, slave morality first has to have an opposing, external world, it needs, physiologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all; its action is basically a reaction.” (GM I 10) Slave morality is principally an argument, being ‘good’ in slave morality is the result of reasoning taking you to the conclusion that you are good.

The concept of slave morality has been seen in recent history. For example, in 1985, Georgi Arbatov, a member of the Central Committee of the USSR Communist Party, told an American audience, “we are going to do a terrible thing to you. We are going to take away your enemy”. This is considered a bad thing under slave morality because without oppression, people cannot know who they are. A slave’s identity is founded in their otherness, if there is no ‘other’ to differentiate themselves from, they cannot understand their identity. Following the loss of the enemy in 1985, the United States found a new enemy in global terrorism following 9/11. This, due to fact terrorism as a whole is near impossible to completely eradicate due to the unpredictability of it, (for example, although the culprits of the 9/11 bombings were known to police, there was little they could do to prevent the bomb detonating and subsequent destruction) has given the US an everlasting sense of fear and oppression, allowing then to know they are good and have a continued sense of identity. Slave morality could also be found in the United Kingdom during the Brexit referendum. The leave campaign used the threat of immigration to instil the feelings of fear and resentment in British citizens. The British people began to feel oppressed by the number of immigrants entering the country and therefore formed an identity fuelled by their dependency on the fear of immigration.

According to Nietzsche, slave and master morality have recurred throughout history. He states that ancient Greek and Roman societies were grounded in master morality. The stereotypical hero of that time period was a strong-willed, Herculean man. He suggests that slave morality is therefore rooted in the emergence of religion during this time, for example within the fundamental principles of religion. The idea of original sin in Christianity means that all humans have to capacity to oppress themselves. Therefore, if people are oppressing themselves and are acting as their own enemies, there are no risks of this enemy being removed and consequently, no risk of people losing their sense of identity. Nietzsche condemns the rise of slave morality, viewing ressentiment as “priestly vindictiveness” suggesting that it is the jealous weak seeking to enslave the strong. Nietzsche believes that the world we live in will always be one of slave morality due to our use of language and grammar. For example, slave morality allows a disassociation between the pronoun and the verb. This can be seen in common phrases like “the lightning flashes”, there is no such thing as lightning separate from the flash as there is no such thing as a slavely moral person being separate from their strength.

John Stuart Mill, Fredrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx’s social and political background will have heavily influenced their interpretation of what is causing the demise of human flourishing. It is therefore, difficult to determine if one theory can be used as the explanation of this demise as the theory of why the present condition of society is not advantageous to human flourishing may only be applicable to each philosophers’ time in history. This suggests that there may be another explanation as to what reduces humans to something less than human.

This essay has explored the fact that Marx, Mill and Nietzsche believe that the present condition of human affairs reduces human beings to something less than fully human and had discussed their differing interpretations of this development. Marx believes that humans have devolved into animal-beings due to their alienation from labour and the product of labour. Mill theorises that humans have become less than due to their willingness to conform and suggests that society would be improved if we allowed individuals to explore different ways of living. Finally, Nietzsche believes that the decline of humanity is found in peoples need for oppression in order to determine whether they are good. There seem to be some similarities between Marx and Nietzsche’s theories, drawn from the fact it is weakness in the individuals that cause a stunt in human flourishing rather than in the society as Mill suggests. Similarities were also found between Nietzsche and Mill. Both theories either explicitly or implicitly suggest that conforming to a common goal leads to a decline in human flourishing. In my opinion, a combination of all three theories could act as an explanation of the current human condition, however, when individually evaluated, the political background and context in which their theories were written mean that they are all somewhat unreliable and would not be applicable to today’s society.

In this essay I shall look at whether Nietzsche was right that Judeo-Christian morality has its psychological origin in resentment. For Nietzsche, a lot of human action which appears great has indeed been actioned for slavish reasons and rather than imparting an actual increase in power, these actions only serve to promote a perceived sense of increased power (Foot, 2002). From our limitations we are presented with our weaknesses, and these weaknesses can grow into a ressentiment for those who exhibit themselves as our superior. This has the causal effect of the subordinate’s efforts to topple these masters and promote their own superiority. This ressentiment is what Nietzsche wants us to believe is at the root of the psychological origins of Judeo-Christian morality. I will suggest that ressentiment alone is not enough to force this shift in morality and that although the person driven by this ressentiment may claim to hate and want to destroy their superiors, they are also reliant upon them.

Nietzsche’s concept of ressentiment is close to the English meaning of the word resentment but holds within it a more poisoned bitterness, one that has been kept bottled up and festering for a long time. Nietzsche uses this idea of ressentiment in the context of developing his famous account of master and slave mortality. In his Genealogy of Morals, represented by the Romans the master morality is the morality of the life loving and strong. It is the morality of those who love adventure, those who delight in creativity and in their own sense of purpose and assertiveness. On the other hand, the slave morality is the morality of the weak and the humble – the “Priestley” Jews of the text – those who feel victimised and afraid to strike out into the world.

These weaklings are chronically passive because they are afraid of the strong, and as a result the weak feel frustrated that they cannot get what they want from life. They become envious of the strong and they also secretly start to hate themselves for being so cowardly and weak – but it is difficult for one to live thinking that he or she is hateful, so the weak invent a rationalisation. A rationalisation that tells them that they are good and moral exactly because they are weak and passive.

It is a rationalisation that a clever weakling is never quite going to convince himself of due to the internal damage that this would cause him. While the strong and the rich will carry on getting stronger and richer, often laughing at weaker men, the clever weakling will feel such a combination of self-loathing and envy of his enemies that he will need to lash out. He will feel the urge to hurt his enemy, but of course he cannot risk direct physical confrontation as he is a weakling; his only weapons are words – and so, Nietzsche argued, the weakling becomes extremely clever with words. They will say that patience, humility, obedience and being on the side of the weak and humble are virtues and that the opposites of those things are not only bad but are actually evil. Aggressiveness, pride, independence and being physically and/or materialistically successful are all those which must be condemned. “Blessed are the meek” said Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5.5).

Nietzsche comments on how the concepts of “bad” and “evil”, although both being the opposite of “good”, differ by drawing our attention to the fact that there were two separate concepts of “good” in co-existence. The “evil” that a man of ressentiment professed is exactly that which a noble man would refer to as “good”. All this thought and hatred – this ressentiment – had culminated in the creation of the concept of evil, and with this, the identity of the noble man was one that embodied this “evil”. These are the things Nietzsche presents as the genesis of the Judeo-Christian morality scheme that is still prevalent today.

Matt McManus suggests that the strength and power generated by ressentiment is just a facade (McManus, 2019). That the motivation behind all these acts “is a personal and collective weakness which stifles all efforts to truly overcome its opposition.” He states that those driven by resentment may truly hate and wish destruction upon those who lord over them but that they also rely upon these nobles – that without them the resentful have no-one to feel morally superior over. It is this that renders resentment an ineffective force alone, it may appear to have power and bite but is not enough to enforce change on its own merit. The person that can affect such a change will be one who does not concern himself with the opinions of others but strives towards his own ends and values. This is a person who would not be resentful.

That this change would appear to require being forwarded by a strong, driven and creative type, a type of exactly the kind that the resentful were trying to overcome seems to make the argument circular.

Therefore, although ressentiment certainly played a part in the origin of the Judeo-Christian morality- as it was the Jews who rejected and reversed the aristocratic value equation to undermine the authority of the noble and strong Romans – ressentiment seems not a strong enough force on its own to usher in this reversal under its own steam. In fact, it seems that the Jews were dependent upon the Romans as the power of their resentment was borne from the feelings of moral superiority that this relationship bred.

In Nietzsche’s (1873) work “On Truth and Lying in a Non-Moral Sense”, Nietzsche explores the prominence of lies in our truths and in our lives when emancipated from any moral judgements. The argument proceeds through an argument constructing how humanity both hypocritically and willingly surrounds itself in deceptions and the deception of truth.

Nietzsche begins by emphasizing the insignificance of our cognition and logic in the grand scheme of humanity’s existence. Our perspective of moral values and intelligence is insignificant as the appraisal of our human knowledge only stretches as far as there are humans to value it. Our self-deemed intellectual superiority is the initial deception in our existence, as it is just that: human intellect as interpreted by humans and nothing more.

Nietzsche believes human intellect “shows its greatest strengths in dissimulation” (142). Oxford defines dissimulation as a concealment of one’s ideas, emotions or character. Humans practice this fancier term for deception in a seemingly infinite number of instances in their daily lives. Lying can be seen in our actions and our language. Nietzsche considers flattery, gossip, and the masks and performances people put on to convey to the public as all forms of willing lies and deceptions for the benefit of themselves or others. None-the-less, they are an abundance of words and actions that all describe the same vane deceits that make having any pursuit or judgement of truth seem ridden with hypocrisy.

Nietzsche emphasizes the presence of lying being endorsed through the formations of society. When concepts are attributed to things, subjective truths can be given objective validation in the society it operates under. This process is like the describing of colours and their associated meanings being different across cultures. The words we use, arbitrary in themselves, become what Nietzsche calls “tokens of designation” (143). These invented, societal tokens are regulators of behaviour that modify and change how citizens act to fit the peaceful mould of the society. When people utilize these arbitrary terms and their subjective meaning wrongly, or in a manner deemed untrue, the language performance is accepted despite being false unless it brings harm to others or themselves. It is with legal and social norms that language becomes morally weighted when it would otherwise be neutral. People are not as much in opposition of lies but in opposition of harm, and so humans can be found to willingly perform deceptive uses of language and actions and have it accepted if it is not harmful to the society.

Language also stimulates the narrow illusion of what truth is. Truths seemingly appear as the virtuous knowledge that humanity perceives to drive for, unless in cases where the truth brings damaging consequences once it is told. In that case it can also be met with hostility. However, Nietzsche documents how conventions of truth are just forms of deception. The invention of words occurs to articulate subjective observations and stimulus from our memories. As far as language is concerned, the goals are not truth but uniformity in the categorization of what is and what isn’t any given thing. The articulation created through naming our experiences in the world are equivocations of all similar things though they may not be identical. Just like all snowflakes are different, Nietzsche finds lying in every word we use, as words falsely equivocate unique things and sensations as under the same concept by ignoring the minute differences in all cases of said thing. The result is a series of memories laced in metaphor descriptions built on older metaphors to the point where the essence of any truth is lost in centuries of cultural evolutions of every concept and feeling.

The final dialogue in his analysis truth and lying in a non-moral sense is the connection between art and science. Nietzsche supposes if everything that we conceptualize are layered metaphors and deceptive lies that we impose on ourselves, then science is just as much an imposition as art on our reality. Science is a binding that attempts to be truth. In contrast, Nietzsche describes art like dreams, in which art “constantly manifests the desire to shape the given world of the waking human being… which are just as multiform, irregular… charming and ever-new as things are in the world of dream” (151). Both the scientific and artistic man live in abstractions, however where science tries to portray metaphors as truth, art dares not deceive itself as truth. Embracing lying and art gives this intuitive person a more livened sensory experience free of reason, in contrast to the sheltered and indeed disillusioned scientific person.

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote in his book ‘The Joyful Science’ that ‘God is dead’, and he was one of the first major philosophers to explore Nihilism.Nietzsche believed in the concept that Nihilism would eventually deeply affect and destroy potential moral and religious convictions. Nietzsche also believed that the European civilization lost hope in Christianity but was still abiding by its systems based on values and morality. He predicted that the European civilization was facing a catastrophic crisis, and predicted wars in the 20th century, as a result of the collapse in the morality system because of the concept of Nihilism, and the belief that there are no moral truths. He argued that mankind would eventually work through nihilism but it would require sacrifices.

Nietzsche believed that humanity should create a new individualistic morality system as a result of the post-Christian age. He called this theory ‘Übermensch’ or ‘Superman’. This theory suggests that society follows a biased and socially-constructed implementation of morality dictated by institutions like the church, government etc.

The theory of ‘Übermensch suggests that an individual creates his own morality based on experiences in the physical vs supernatural world. That an individual is able to free himself from the illusion and create a moral purpose for his or her life to help advance and improve humanity, while at the same time, also help others break free from institutional beliefs and morals. Nietzsche suggested that men would become their own creators and masters and impact history forever. He suggested that this would lead to a perfect existence. Nietzsche believed that the individual should live life to the fullest and embrace all sufferings and pain in life fearlessly and courageously. That the individual has lived many lives in the past and will do so many times in the future.

That the individual should live out all his primal urges of sexuality, survival, pleasures etc.Nihilism suggest that life is meaningless and that there are no religious or moral principles because nothing can be known or proven. My question is should the concept of Ubermensch be linked with Nihilism where we accept to create our own reality and beliefs? Or should it be viewed as a separate identity? Do Nihilists believe that they can live life without morals, does this mean they can live a life of blasphemy and crime? Or does it mean that they have some moral judgment that is their own?

Thousands of years ago our ancestors looked up into the starts and questioned their place in the universe. A Question we are still very familiar with and tend to think about very often. Despite all these technological advancements since the start of civilization, we are still burdened by the basic existential question about the meaning of life. We, as humans, have always desired to perceive our lives to be meaningful. we believe we live more than to merely exist. Considering that our time in this world, as an individual, is finite; it seems as we are afraid that eventually everything that was once ‘us’ will cease to exist. According to theories, people seek out a sense of enduring meaning which makes them feel more than mortal. This meaning comes from purpose. purpose gives one something to live for. It is less of what one wants and more of what one contributes to the world. The purpose is what lets one be part of something that transcends biological existence. For many, this may come from leaving a lasting legacy, by having children or creating works that outlast their own lives. for some, purpose comes from religion, with the belief that religion is a mean of transcending death and attaining an immortal spirit.

However, many would argue against this. Many philosophers nowadays think of the question about the meaning of life to be confused or misguided. The question itself is considered too abstract to be answered. What makes it so hard to answer is also that it is not clear what kind of answer is being looked for. The theory of nihilism states that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and skepticism that condemns existence. The German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), is most often associated with nihilism. In Will to Power, he writes, “Every belief, every considering something true, is necessarily false because there is simply no true world.” For Nietzsche, there is no objective order or structure in the world except what we give it. Another approach that counters my argument of purpose being the meaning of life is the theory of Objectivism. Philosopher, Ayn Rand’s theory, objectivism begins by embracing the fact that existence exists. To exist means to be something. The law of identity says that one is identical to itself, therefore a fact is a fact; independent of any consciousness and must remain immutable. In Rand’s philosophy, reality, which does exist, has no alternatives and nothing can transcend it. This counters my argument as to embrace objectivism is to reject all notions of the supernatural.

Although everyone answers their meaning of life based on what they go through and what they believe in, one thing common is the central motivating aims of one’s life. How one contributes and feels needed. Without purpose, or something worthwhile to do, people flounder. The purpose is the ‘why’ that drives you forward, as Smith says in her ted talk. Meaning through purpose can be found internal to life, In the many activities that one takes part in, in their life. It can be the job that makes them happy or a loved one like a sibling or offspring that drives one to do better each day. In this internal view of life, it is the satisfaction and happiness we gain that justifies life and gives it ‘meaning’. This meaning is best found in activities that benefit us and also others, the community or the earth as a whole. An example of this is the theory of existentialism. Existentialism is a philosophy concerned with finding self and the meaning of life through personal responsibility and free will. Existentialism is the search and journey for true self and true personal meaning in life.

Purpose also gives meaning to life externally, external as in a realm out of the life we have at this moment. And external life commonly makes the claim that there is supernatural power, evaluating how

we decide to live out life and act towards others, leading life after death where we will be assigned some reward or punishment. The meaning of this external interpretation is to fulfill our purpose, which is to meet the expectations of God or a supreme being. A lot of philosophical theories we learned about in the course support the idea of an external purpose. For example, Aristotle’s cosmological argument states that God does indeed exist, because nothing would exist without a supernatural cause. Interesting anatomy to contrast the internal and external purposes of life is to imagine walking down a busy street. Your purpose can be to just get somewhere else, for example, you may think there is a better place off in the distance. In this case, the meaning of your journey down the road is external to the experience of the journey itself. On the other hand, you might be intensely interested in what your surroundings hold. It may be the people around you, gardens or establishments, etc. You may stop along the way, to study and learn more about the surrounding, with little reason other than the pleasure they give you. In this case, the meaning of your journey is more than getting somewhere else, it is finding what gives you happiness and contempt.

Furthermore, the purpose you serve in your life is what you leave as your mark behind. What you do and how you act is what, (literally), defines you as a person. Whatever your purpose may be, it is less about what you want and more about what you can do to serve others. This is important because one cannot live just by oneself. Humans are social beings and without interactions and relationships, it is impossible to survive. Only by contributing and serving others can one create relationships and love, necessary for a healthy mental state and a meaning full life.

In conclusion, even though, the debate about the meaning of life has been the topic of discussion for a long time, the answer to this question comes from what one decides to live for. Whether this may be how one attains spiritual contempt and satisfaction or how one contributes around themselves to serve others and spread love. One’s purpose is what lets one be part of something that transcends biological existence

In “A Score to Settle”, an action thriller film directed by Shawn Ku, the main character Frank, portrayed by Nicholas Cage, is an ex-con previously affiliated with a local crime cartel, who seeks retribution on his bosses after 19 years of wrongful imprisonment. When he realized he had been duped into taking the fall for his boss’ crime he became quite indignant and resentful, especially since he left his infant motherless son in the care of fellow ‘mob-members’. Overtime, he was agonized by the prevalent thought of vengeance causing him to not sleep and eventually he became a chronic insomniac with dementia. Luckily this caused him to receive parole, upon his release, he was faced with the classic choice of “to burn (burn everything down and start over again) or not to burn (suck it up and deal with our lives as they are)” (James Lengstorf). He can either start a new life alongside his son whose life was potentially destroyed due to the domino effects of parental actions or seek revenge against those who double-crossed him for time lost; He chose both. The writer explores the characters thoughts and actions from a unique perspective by using the effects of insomnia as a form of drug (a mind altering substance that deters the user from reality). As a result, the people, events and overall experience of the character is comprised; some things in the screenplay are a figment. This essay serves to determine two elements of film used in A Score to Settle, and explain their influence on the development of the plot, as well as explore how trauma and the constraints of time and space factor into the psychological well being of an individual, and by extension society.

Elements of Film are used to impact the interpretation of a story and its characters, the two selected to be discussed in regards to A Score To Settle are flashback which refers to images depicting previous events in the characters` lives and dialogue which conveys the film’s plot as well as character traits. Both of these elements vastly aid in developing the predominant idea of the tragic insomniac hero in the film. The themes highlighted I the film are struggle with self, power and corruption, courage and heroism, love, good overcoming evil (in this case “evil” is both the mob members as well as the world) and disillusionment with life; all of which the aforementioned elements of film bring to life. “The experiencing of dissociative states seems to be the most common manifestation of PTSD related to criminal behavior. In this scenario, the subject. . . re-experiences elements of the trauma in dreams, uncontrollable and emotionally distressing intrusive images, episodes of reliving the traumatic event, and in behavioral re-enactments of the traumatic situation”. The flashback technique was used multiple times in the film, in the dizzy spells/episodes of the character, he experiences traumatic moments from his past which fuels his insomniac tendencies; the more he thinks of the disturbing event the less desire he has to sleep and more he covets revenge thus advancing the plot.1Through dialogue the writer hints at certain ideas that wouldn’t otherwise be comprehensible to the audience, such as the moral standing of Frank, his intentions, the response of various characters to his reappearance and behavior. His somewhat normal actions would sometimes be perceived by others as strange or at times scary leading the audience to delve into the possibilities of what they could be so freaked out about. The dialogue slowly divulges to the audience the reason for Frank’s quite confusing vengeance ploy. Why does he still he want vengeance?, he has received a pay-off for going to prison for the boss; he now can formulate a longstanding relationship with his son, who he has missed integral bonding moments with, he seemingly has all he could possibly ask for, so what’s his ‘beef’, this is the question the audience desires an answer to and flashback and dialogue are the major elements of the film that are employed with answering such questions.

Psychological Effects. As the film progresses the investigation into what exactly occurred and what Frank plans to do about it becomes more intelligible we understand that he has “a dying man of dubious mental clarity”. Frank is a severe insomniac with dementia predicted to die if he doesn’t get some sleep, not only that but he’s a vindictive individual with ptsd whose spent years in a correctional facility; bad combination. Frank’s mental condition based on circumstances resembled that of a war survivor, insomnia alone is quite metamorphosing to a person’s life and mind. The effects of insomnia are: increased risk of medical conditions such as stroke and seizures, increased risk for mental health disorders, increased risk for accidents and shortened life expectancy”, thus leaving the audience to infer that Frank based on his characteristics was an unstable individual capable of harming himself and others; a theory later deemed to be true. Being incarcerated heightened these effects on him, furthermore he experienced trauma which we see make him an irritable, hot tempered, anxiety ridden person. It is easy to assume that Frank is merely a troubled person and always has been, however he was exposed to things that would drive any sane person mad. In the words of Atticus Finch “You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view…until you climb into his skin and walk around in it.” “Before I can live with other folks I’ve got to live with myself”. He couldn’t live with himself because of the mistakes he had made in the past, he couldn’t move on, he couldn’t think about anything else, he couldn’t sleep, every-single-day the mere inkling of joy brought him back to his traumatic past, he may have been swindled once in reality, but in his mind, it was a daily robbery, they had taken 19 years of his life, his son’s life, his sleep, his sanity and eventually his life. Frank could not escape his past because he couldn’t escape himself and until death that was his struggle.

A story cannot be written without a plot otherwise it would just be a person rambling about random junk without structure or format, similarly you cannot live life without purpose. Frank had lost his purpose and became a hollow man trying to be filled with something; anything, he tried buying every material possession he ever wanted or could ever want yet he wasn’t satisfied or relieved of his burdens. By day he puts on a façade for his son being happy and supportive and by night he’s plotting his revenge. Realizing that neither of his options burn or not to burn gave him true peace he inevitably develops the desire to be fixed and the best place to be fixed is where you were made (the same people that made him-they gave him a livelihood and a sense of belonging, broke him-dismantled his life); generally when an appliance or device is destroyed the warranty is used to have it replaced or repaired. This man was damaged, he was just a dim light waiting to go out but he intended to use that little ounce of light he had left in him to shine light on the truth which in his case meant going on a killing spree.3 It is evident that the mental state of person and this container we are in called the mind can easily become a prison that one can only hope to escape from; as humans we either end our pain or spread it. Frank was in both a mental and physical prison, the effects of that are incomprehensible, he was in a state of complete self destruct mode and everyone around him was bound to feel that explosion. “Hurt people hurt people”.

Based on the research and inferential aspects of this film it can be concluded that as human beings we are impacted not only by our own morals, values, principles and doubts but we are influenced by the world around us and all the problems, challenges, highs, lows and people that come with it. Our decisions impact everyone. Like Frank each person has their trauma, their prison, what broke them ,what made them and what they think will fix them, whether that is the thought that a career, possessions or a significant other will make them content. Whether person or possession everyone has something they believe will give them that ultimate satisfaction that all humans desire; it’s in our nature after all. Even so, it is imperative that we recall that our actions influence everyone around us directly and indirectly and we must be conscious and cautious of that. The elements of the film and film techniques aided in the portrayal of these notions and aided the audience in following the story, understanding the character, his emotions and actions and also giving the audience a glimpse of their own flaws. A personal philosophy of mine is “amor fati” established by Friedrich Nietzsche which basically means the love of ones fate; in life I believe we get what’s coming to us, our death is a result of the story we’ve written, it us who writes our own story and it is us who will have to put the full stop on that last sentence, be careful of what you write and how you write it and who you allow to read it; the integrity of our characters’ are easily compromised.

Our topic for research is the views of Plato and Federick Nietzsche on love sex and marriage. The paper describes the views of each philosopher on love, sex and marriage and to understand it with a contemporary point of view. The paper includes terms like homosexuality, how sex is for producing kids than loveAlso to learn more about both of the philosophers including research that expand our knowledge.

Love, Sex and Marriage when it comes to defining them there are several definitions and has a wide range of opionions and the topics are very subjective. Love is a complex set of emotions, behaviors, and beliefs associated with strong feelings of affection, protectiveness, warmth, and respect for another person. Marriage is the process by which two people make their relationship public, official, and permanent. It is the joining of two people in a bond that putatively lasts until death, but in practice is often cut short by separation or divorce. Even though they are popular opinions they’re still opinions and they change with situations and people. We have taken two philosophers who have exerted a great influence on Western philosophy : Plato and Federick Nietzsche.

Plato is an ancient Greek philosopher, student of Socrates, and teacher of Aristotle. His writings explored justice, beauty and equality and also contained discussions in aesthetics, political philosophy, theology, cosmology, epistemology and the philosophy of language. Sometime around 385 B.C.E., he founded a school of learning, known as the Academy, which he presided over until his death. His final years were spent at the Academy and with his writing. His work covered a broad spectrum of interests and ideas: mathematics, science and nature and morals.

Federick Nietzsche was a German philosopher, essayist, and cultural critic. His writings on truth, morality, language, aesthetics, history, nihilism, power, consciousness, and the meaning of existence have exerted an enormous influence on Western philosophy and intellectual history. One of his famous statement that ‘God is dead’ is a rejection of christianity as a meaningful force in contemporary life. His other works were an endorsement to self perfection through creative drive and his concept of a ‘super-man’ or ‘over-man’ (Übermensch), an individual who strives to exist beyond conventional categories of good and evil, master and slave.

Aristotle, is not interested in erotic love know as Eros, as he is interested in friendship known as philia but according to Plato the best kind of friendship is that which lovers can have for each other. It is friendship that is born out of erotic love, which means philia out of eros. The aim of erotic love (eros) is to transcend the existence of human, at connecting it with the eternal and infinite and thereby at achieving the only species of immortality that is open to us human beings. Philia strengthen and develop eros also, it transforms the person’s desire to understand self, the other and the universe.

Plato’s theory of love is there in Phaedrus and the Symposium. Plato is very much interested in the same sex desire that can be between an older and a younger man, but this doesn’t mean that his theory of love does not apply to other kinds of erotic relationship. He distinguished between two kind of love, love that can give rise to friendship and a baser kind of love that is enjoyed by those who are more given to the body than to soul. He says, the lover is happiest when he is with his beloved and sad when they both are separated. By being separated, the parts are going to die from which the lover’s wings grow and he faces the intense pain which makes him prize his beloved above everyone else, makes him unable to think a bad thought about him and let alone to betray or forsake him. In Phaedrus Plato emphasizes the relationship that love has to the divine and hence to the eternal and infinite and in the Symposium, he emphasizes more the relationship that it has to practice of philosophy, the search for happiness and the contemplation of truth. There is a term known as Platonic love which is named after Plato which means a type of love, or close relationship that is not romantic. The concern of Platonic love invented by Plato is growing through the amount of closeness to wisdom and true beauty from carnal attraction to souls, and eventually union with the truth. Platonic love is contrasted with romantic love. There are two types of explanation of love in Plato’s Symposium – Vulgar Eros aLso known as Earthly Eros and Divine Eros also known as Divine Love. Vulgar eros is material attraction towards a beautiful body for physical satisfaction. But Divine eros is different, the journey begins from physical attraction i.e, attraction towards beautiful form or body but transcends gradually to love and supreme beauty. The concept of divine love was later transformed in platonic love. Vulgar eros and divine love are connected and part of the same continuous process of pursuing totality of being itself, with the purpose of mending human nature, eventually reaching a point of unity where there is no longer an aspiration to change. In Symposium , Eros is discussed as a Greek god – the king of gods. He has also given a concept known as Ladder of Love. It says each step nearer to truth further distances love from physical beauty of body towards love that is more focused on knowledge and the essence of beauty. The starting of the ladder is with carnal attraction of body for body, progressing to a love for body and soul . In time with consequent steps up the ladder, the idea of beauty is eventually no longer connected with a body, but entirely united with being itself.

Plato describes different ways in which people love. Some people only use their lovers for gaining pleasure— especially sexual pleasure—out of all others. Others genuinely care about the growth of their partner’s character, and, while they are attracted to their beloved’s body and experience sexual desire, sex is a secondary objective or such lovers. They see their lover’s beauty as inspirational, something respectable and valuable, something that arises feelings of awe and happiness , not something that is to be exploited for one’s own personal physical gratification. Plato believed that one will experience both of these desires in himself and that these forces will fight against each other for primacy.Plato thought that love should be pure and sexual relationship should be confined to producing children over only physical pleasures.

Most inferences of Plato’s work say that, because men don’t have a womb, Plato is strong on the belief that all homosexual sex is against nature.Importantly, however, he stresses that the same point applies to masturbation, sex with infertile women, and couples who would not produce good children. Plato does not only accept that any procreative sexual activity is good, but only that which produces good children as an outcome. According to him, marriages are arranged to ensure that parents are of the psychological types which suit each other and that they are in absolute physical health for giving birth to good children , neither the wife nor the husband should be drunk when copulating, as alcohol compromises the quality of the seed; moreover, only people of certain ages are to produce children, that too for no longer than 10 years.

According to Plato, sex is natural but not a means to get the pleasure one would desire. To respond when we see beauty in a way that one would want children is not the most practical response to it. Beauty arises in an individual much deeper longing, which he needs to gain awareness of and which one needs to fulfill. Plato proposes an understanding of the meaning of beauty that cannot be depleted by any amount of sexual relationships. Even if one would not agree to it, his point makes one rethink what is so distracting about beauty that the desire has no ending.

Marriage- is a legal or formal union recognized by two people as partners in a personal relationship (historically and in some jurisdictions specifically a union between a man and a woman). When two people make a public pledge or commitment to each other to share and live their lives together that is recognised socially, legally and sometimes religiously. According to many Christian denominations, a marriage is a union between a man and woman, instituted and ordained by God as the lifelong relationship between one man as husband, and one woman as wife.In ancient Greek culture, the purpose of marriage was to reproduce, establish a family, and to have heirs who would carry on the family name,lineage and memory. In Plato’s days there was no prejudice against men having sex with other men. Sex with the same gender was quite common and accepted in the Greek culture, but men did not marry other men. Because there would be no conception and birth so marriage was not necessary. Plato is one of the most influential philosophers in the world. He has contributed in many fields like ethics, metaphysics, cosmology, politics, etc. One of his most famous works is the Republic, which contains how a philosopher runs a wise society. From his works it’s assumed that Plato never married or have any offsprings

Plato viewed marriage in an unconventional way, it was a bit different from the original concept of marriage. According to his depictions of an ideal state, the state should monitor and have a control over human reproduction. As per the philosophy of eugenics, temporary marriages shall be arranged in a festival, where the matches shall be chosen by the selected Rulers. Plato understood that this would not be accepted by the common people so it was done in secret. In Plato’s republic a number system was introduced in which your mate would be chosen by selecting a ‘marriage number.’ According to this concept the people with similar qualities will be matched together so that they can procreate. Everyone chose the names from the lot and the mate they get is chosen by God himself and if you draw a blank you are considered unfit for offsprings. Plato also wanted the offsprings to be taken away from the biological parents and wanted them to be raised in common nurseries. Plato’s reason for restructuring marriage was to abolish the concept of private family and to give power to the state, to discourage personal interest and to encourage common good and to increase the strength in the state. The reason was also to improve human conditions, the logic behind it was if people with good qualities bred then the outcome would also be good. His main aim was to bring unity among people and to have atleast some citizens in the state who had the best interest of the state. His main idea behind this was to find the best race, and the best people for this society.

However, Plato realised his error that even though people with similar qualities mated, it’s not necessary that the offspring would have those ‘golden’ qualities of the parents. Aristotle also firmly criticized this theory of Plato. He said that this theory of Plato was unworkable. As Plato has not taken into consideration the fact that natural love a parent would have towards his or her child and the emotions associated. Plato had assumed that the love for family can be transferred to the fellow citizens. Plato himself never a marriage. He viewed the institution of marriage only as a means to procreate and to establish a family.

The choice of Nietzche, as a philosopher who contributes in a unique way to discussion of love may not seem to be immediately validated. It is argued that Nietzsche’s philosophy, while dealing in a more obvious way with issues such as ‘truth’ ;’perspectivism’ & ‘will to power’ is no less concerned with the Platonic & Aristotelian exploration of ‘the good’,’practical wisdom’ and ‘the meaning of love’.

Nietzche explains love via his concept of Amor Fati or ‘love of fate’ . He talks about how we should accept life as it is & live a higher existence.( which he named as Übermensch)

Nietzche never goes in depth when it comes to the term ‘love’. Our idea of love could easily fall in line of course with his idea of the Dionysian ( a figure who lives his life based on the impulsive & in harmony with natural world).Contrast to this is the Apollonian (which is a figure which puts humans as higher than nature through constructs of knowledge.)

When it comes to love ‘specifically’Nietzsche says that he would probably think of it as merely an emotional impulse which can be put in use to reach a more ideal existence as love exhibits both the Apollonian & the Dionisian.

Nietzsche says that his craving for love was only paired by his fear of it.

He seemed to embody Schopenhauer’s popular parable which talks about the porcupines who needed to huddle together for warmth and who struggle to find the optimal distance which makes them feel sufficiently warm without hurting one another.

‘Let a man suffer!’let him get sick!’exclaims Nietzche. This sickness would make him a stronger person which will then allow him to reflect about life. It will also make him value the presence of another person (his wife). Men have gone to war and so it is in our genes to fight. A man who is afraid of his wife has no right to live in this world. Nietzsche concludes by quoting,; What does not kill you only makes you strong

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, the rebellious philosopher , firmly maintained that a strong bond of friendship is the vital ingredient for a successful marriage. To him, friendship was the highest and the purest form of love. He held that good friends could inspire each other, and push the other to his/her limits, helping them realising the ideal of Übermensch(superman). Friendship is crucial, as highlighted by his popular quote,

‘It is not a lack of love, but a lack of friendship that makes unhappy marriages.’

His views on marriage might be inclined more towards pragmatism rather than fleeting romantic tendencies. He held that a marriage based on romantic and sexual feelings would be unable to last long.This raises the question about a successful base for marriage. Nietzsche answers, “When entering into a marriage one ought to ask oneself: do you believe you are going to enjoy talking with this woman up into your old age? Everything else in marriage is transitory, but most of the time you are together will be devoted to conversation.”

He asks people not to marry for love, or physical attraction as such feelings won’t endure for long, thus won’t help a marriage last.he says that to last a lifetime, we must choose a partner with whom we connect. a connection that goes beyond physical attraction, in the realm that exists even when these evanescent romantic ideas disappear.Then naturally, one should marry someone they love talking to as ‘ Most of the time in married life is taken up by talk.’

With the astonishing frequency of the current divorce rates, and impulsive marriages, his philosophy on marriage does seem pragmatic and highly relevant, now more than ever. He wants to prepare couples for the inevitable end of the high of love. However, this does not have to be the end of the marriage and it won’t, as long as the bonds of marriage are forged with the fire of friendship.

‘For as long as I love you I shall render to you the actions of love; if I cease to love you, you will continue to receive the same actions from me, though from other motives’ – Friedrich Nietzsche

However, such a realistic approach is not a characteristic of modern marriages which accounts for its failure. ‘It is obvious that all sense has gone out of modern marriage; which is, however, no objection to marriage but to modernity.’

Today, couples go into marriages already making plans for divorce , which due to it’s inflated frequency has carved it’s way into normality. This is a red flag, as the institution of marriage quite possibly is one of the pillars supporting society and civilization itself. Broken homes, insecure children, light marriages are destroying the social structure. It is chaotic.

He held that instead of transient romantic feelings, one should enter the institution of marriage based on the potential to create children who would be able to live up to the ideal of Übermensch. This, he believed is a must for society to flourish.

‘Everything about woman is a riddle, and everything about woman has one solution: it is called pregnancy. Man is for woman a means: the purpose is always the child.” From Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche

This quote has been interpreted differently by people.at face value, it reeks of misogyny as it seems to suggest that women’s primary purpose in life is to procreate. However, it may be symbolic of the potential for creativity.here, Nietzsche may be suggesting that entered with the right person, a marriage has the capacity to awaken and inspire the creativity . It is symbolic of the novel.

While suggesting this, he is also aware of the fact that such an idealistic marriage is almost always inconceivable for the ordinary men. ‘Marriage was contrived for ordinary people, for people who are capable of neither great love nor great friendship, which is to say, for most people–but also for those exceptionally rare ones who are capable of love as well as of friendship.’ However,he suggests that marriage can be liberating to those who are capable of great friendship.

Nietzsche was a firm believer of gender roles. He held that men are naturally attracted towards obstacles and challenges while woman seek peace and comfort. These attributes,he believed were the catalyst for growth in life. Hence, the wife should let the husband suffer for his own good.

All becoming and growth, everything that guarantees the future involves pain” From Twilight of the Idols by Nietzsche. He understood that pain was a Necessity for evolution, it makes us who we are.’Whatever does not kill me makes me stronger” as he famously said in the Twilight of the Idols.

All of this is based on the elegant idea of friendship that inspires each other, not the one based on mutual benefits. It might seem similar to the very absurd romantic ideals he discards. However, unlike the love based solely on the hormones that gives one a feeling of high where a person bends and sacrifices his ideals, best friends can take a stand against each other. They’re not looking for approval from each other, they are looking out for each other.

This is perfectly exemplified by this quote- ‘If you want a friend, you must also be willing to wage war for him: and to wage war, you must be capable of being an enemy.”

In Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche details the shortcomings of the Judeo-Christian tradition. He focuses on the fact that the followers of this tradition have developed in such a way that impedes happiness and the normal will power of a strong individual. While Nietzsche mentions some positive aspects of what he would like to see in the world in Genealogy of Morals, he focuses on attacking what currently dominates the world: Judeo-Christian tradition. Nietzsche finds problems with two major aspects of the Judeo-Christian tradition: its reactivity rather than creativity, and its celebration of suffering rather than joyful activity. His problem is that both actions attack as opposed to create, and cause humans to dwell on negativity rather than take part in creative activity. Nietzsche’s ideas are innovative and deserving of great respect, but while condemning this tradition, he himself seems to show the same behavior of which he disapproves. Nietzsche’s work itself is reactive, negative, and follows the same patterns of the Judeo-Christian tradition that he is rebuking. This contradiction not only brings his ideas into question, but also indicates that suffering and reactivity are fundamental aspects of human nature, which he says are not.

Nietzsche first establishes the origins of Judeo-Christian values. Both Jewish and Christian cultures were enslaved during the part of their history when values were being determined. The philosophies accepted slavery as part of the human condition because the people developing it were slaves themselves. Unfortunately, they also celebrated this captivity. Nietzsche says that by celebrating their condition, the slaves began to believe, “He is good who does not outrage, who harms nobody, who does not attack, who does not requite, who leaves revenge to God, who keeps himself hidden as we do”. The idea of being hidden suggests that these people avoided doing any activities that would make them stand out, hence any kind of constructive activity to further their cultures. They instead celebrated their suffering and cultivated a “will to self-tormenting” that admired and helped continue their enslaved condition. These cultures, which developed a “slave morality,” continue to focus only on their own current existence and fail to progress at all.

When celebrating their own existence, the slave cultures celebrate negative values that adversely affect the world, or at least make no progress. In Nietzsche’s opinion, morality should celebrate “vigorous, free, joyful activity” (33), but he says the slaves refuse this philosophy: “slave morality from the outset says No to what is outside, what is different, what is not itself; and this No is its creative deed” (36). Therefore, the actions of the slaves are basically rejections of the outside world. They are not creative, celebrate their torment. As concepts evolved, the primary aspect of the concept of “good” in slave morality became their own suffering, and that is not worthy of being celebrated.

Nietzsche argues that reverence for suffering, and the reactionary elements of the Judeo-Christian tradition should not be regarded as part of human nature simply because they are part of the dominant system of values. Nietzsche tries to prove that human nature may be the origin of an idea, but its eventual use is very different from its origin. He says, “The cause of the origin of a thing and its eventual utility, its actual employment and place in a system of purposes lie worlds apart” (77). Nietzsche continues to argue that the major aspects, suffering and reactionary attitude, of the dominant western tradition come from artificial conditions. As discussed earlier, the slave tradition went into hiding, and developed “cleverness” (39) according to Nietzsche. He uses the word clever to refer to self-interested arguing and scheming rather than an honest analysis of human influences. However, Nietzsche seems to be using this same method of argument in his pursuit to devalue Judeo-Christian values. Nietzsche undermines the entire system by insisting that it is based on an artificial creditor-debtor relationship. This relationship dictates that man must owe something to everyone who has given him anything, including ancestors. However, the debtor cannot owe anything back to a dead ancestor, and therefore develops guilt, which manifests itself as suffering. This is Nietzsche’s explanation for why Christianity inherently increases guilt and therefore suffering in an individual. He points out, though, that any sense of guilt felt by the individual on account of the Christian values system is based on an unnatural human condition: the creditor-debtor relationship. This would lead one to believe that guilt and suffering and also reactivity originate from this source, and are not inherent in human nature.

The preceding paragraphs described what Nietzsche finds wrong in the JudeoChristian tradition. Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals is essentially a reaction to the Judeo-Christian tradition, rather than a discussion of his own, positive philosophy. He mentions a positive morality, including the “vigorous, free, joyful activity” (33), but he uses this primarily to attack the hatred he sees at the center of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Overall, Nietzsche does try to allow positivism to dominate. He starts the book by exploring the term “good,” but this serves only as an introduction to the discussion of “evil” in Judeo-Christian culture. The second essay includes the concepts of guilt and bad conscience, of which Nietzsche attacks. The contradiction of his writing lies not in his actual argument but in the way that he goes about making the point.

Nietzsche exhibits the same type of attacks that he accuses the Judeo-Christian tradition of in his discussion. He complains of their “weary pessimistic glance, mistrust of the riddle of life, the icy No of disgust with life” (67). As stated before, he despises the No attitude because it is reactive rather than creative. However, his entire Genealogy is of the No attitude that makes very little reference to anything new. The accusations of reactivity that Nietzsche levels against western culture could accidents, even one’s misdeeds seriously for very long, that is the sign of strong, full natures” (39). Nietzsche, however, does not live up to his own high hopes of a strong nature. He takes his enemies very seriously, considering he wrote an entire book devoted to them. This seems to indicate that either Nietzsche himself lacks what he considers a “strong, full nature” or he is wrong about the nature of strong individuals.

Nietzsche also displays suffering through his reactivity. He believes that “every sufferer instinctively seeks a cause for his suffering; more exactly, an agent…upon which he can vent his affects…for the venting of his affects represents the greatest attempt on the part of the suffering to win relief” (127). Nietzsche must be a sufferer because he chooses the Judeo-Christian culture as an agent upon which to vent his affects. His focus on problems with western culture leads him to a pessimistic suffering by his own definition. He refers to the disgust for man the Judeo-Christian tradition bears, but his own disgust is also prominent in his writing. A weak person, he says, falls victim to his suffering rather than breaking out in creative activity, yet this is the weakness that Nietzsche displays in his work.

Perhaps Nietzsche must be reactive to what he finds oppressive. It may not be possible to make his points through any other method. The ideology is still valid and he makes good points about the evolution of the Judeo-Christian culture. However, Nietzsche warms his readers of people who dwell on reactionary activity. In these essays, Nietzsche is unable to label his own work triumphant. He dwells too much on negating and saying No to whatever is not his morality. His essays in Genealogy of Morals show a tendency to behave in a manner in which he claims to be the essence of a “slave morality.” This is telling of certain facets of human nature.

Nietzsche says that suffering and a reactionary attitude are not natural elements of human nature. However, even Nietzsche, who of all people should be aware of his actions, seems to exhibit those two traits in the same writing in which he condemns them. Suffering and reactivity are, according to him, a result of a creditor-debtor relationship. Even Nietzsche suffers, though, and if not from this creditor-debtor relationship, his suffering must arise from a different origin, perhaps a discontent with the world. However, if he can attribute this to his own suffering, he should accept that Christianity may have the same discontent. He overlooks the idea that everyone suffers from a discontent with the world, and everyone wishes it were a more perfect place. He seems to ignore the possibility that a universal discontent, the same he experiences, could be the true reason that Christianity embraces suffering. Nietzsche is a very influential writer, whose ideas were far advanced for his times. However, his own work seems to support the opposite of what he argues: that suffering is universal rather than a problem of the weak.

Friedrich Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud offer bold critiques of human morality that greatly differ from the commonly accepted views of virtue and ethics. Both reject the idea of morality as an instinctive or natural element of human life. Rather, they contend that morality has been created in reaction to the realities of human existence. Although Freud and Nietzsche both claim that morality is a reactive creation, they greatly differ in their accounts of the value of morality. Nietzsche claims that reactive morality is “bad air” to humans and has prevented humanity from flourishing. Freud, however, argues that morality is a necessary aspect of civilization and has enabled humans to peacefully live together. The disagreement between Freud and Nietzsche over the value of morality in human existence is a function of the different motivations that drive their critiques of morality. While Nietzsche’s critique seeks to explore the effect of morality on the individual, Freud’s critique seeks to outline the function of morality in society as a whole.

In his book On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche attempts to explore the “value of [human] values” (7) by investigating the origins of morality through a number of hypothetical narratives. One such narrative that is critical in understanding Nietzsche’s account of morality is his metaphor of a powerless lamb that is constantly preyed upon by a powerful bird of prey. The lamb, powerless to stop the bird from preying, labels the bird as evil for preying upon the lamb. Furthermore, the lamb declares itself as good because it is nothing like the bird. In this reaction to the bird, the lamb compensates for its ressentiment at its powerlessness by becoming the stronger moral being despite the fact that it is physically weaker. The lamb’s reaction to the bird is the result of the lamb’s will to power. The will to power is every individual’s drive “for an optimum of favorable conditions in which to fully release [its] power” (76). To create conditions that enable the lamb to release its power, the lamb invents an alternative criterion of strength — moral strength, virtue, and goodness — that it can use to make its weakness powerful. In Nietzsche’s view, morality thus springs from and compensates for powerlessness

Nietzsche uses the metaphor of the powerless lamb to explore the reactive tendencies of all powerless beings. Like the powerless lamb, powerless humans have reacted to their lack of power by labeling weakness as morally good. Actions that are a result of a lack of power — weakness, timidity, submission, or cowardice — are revalued by powerless beings as moral. Weakness is thus revalued as accomplishment, timidity as humility, submission as obedience, and cowardice as patience. Meanwhile, the actions of powerful humans — dominance, physicality, or the accumulation of wealth — are revalued as evil. As a result, the power relationship between the powerful and the powerless is translated into a moral relationship.

An important part of Nietzsche’s critique of morality is his argument that reactive “slave” morality is bad for the individual and has “obstructed human flourishing” (5). There are many aspects of reactive morality that Nietzsche finds problematic. One factor is the aspect of deception that morality involves. Morality labels the powerless beings as morally better than the powerful beings. However, Nietzsche argues that these powerless beings are not better than the powerful beings. In fact, he claims that powerless beings “want to be powerful one day” (29). Morality thus requires powerless beings to deceive themselves into believing that being weak and “moral” is better and more desirable than being strong and “evil.” Another problem Nietzsche identifies with human morality is that it is merely a reaction to powerlessness. He argues that this reactivity is unhealthy for the individual as it causes the powerless individual to become “rankled by poisonous and hostile feelings” (21) toward those who are powerful. The individual comes to define him or herself by his or her powerlessness and thus becomes deeply invested in his or her own impotence. As a result, the individual is unable to act or flourish; powerlessness becomes the foundation of the individual’s existence.

Freud’s account of human morality shares many similarities with Nietzsche’s account. Like Nietzsche, Freud argues that human morality has been created in reaction to the realities of human existence. Unlike Nietzsche, however, Freud claims that human morality has been created by civilization as a reaction to the aggressive instincts of human beings. He states that human morality takes form in the individual through the superego. The superego is the voice inside the individual that tells the individual “no.” It constrains the individual to morality and goodness, and that tells him or her how he or she “should” behave. The superego internalizes the parental voice of childhood and prevents the expression of our destructive aggressive instincts in the same way that parents prevent the expression of these instincts as children.

Freud’s conception of human morality shares many similarities with Nietzsche’s critical approach. Both Freud and Nietzsche claim that morality is a creation and is not a natural or instinctive aspect of existence. Furthermore, both argue that morality is primarily a reaction to the realities of human life. Despite these critical similarities, Freud and Nietzsche reach very different conclusions as to the overall value of morality. This disagreement is a function of the different motivations that drive their critiques. Nietzsche’s critique is extremely concerned with the impact of human morality on the individual. He begins On the Genealogy of Morality by claiming that humans need “a critique of moral values” and an examination of “the value of [our] values”. Throughout his critique, Nietzsche makes constant reference to the effect of morality on the individual. He explores how reactive morality can negatively define an individual’s existence and prevent personal growth. Nietzsche’s conception of the origins of morality demonstrates his individual-centric approach to morality. He essentially claims that morality is a creation of powerless individuals in response to powerful individuals. Nietzsche’s critique of morality is thus distinctly indifferent to society. When Nietzsche claims that morality might have obstructed human flourishing, he is primarily concerned with how morality has prevented the individual from maximizing his or her capacities for originality, expression, and personal progress.

In contrast, Freud’s critique of morality is primarily interested in how human morality functions within society as a whole. Unlike Nietzsche, Freud argues that human morality is not a human creation. Rather, he claims that morality has been created by civilization in response to human aggression. When Freud explores morality and the superego, he emphasizes how these structures enable humans to peacefully coexist. Although Freud does recognize that morality exacts a psychic toll on the individual, his primary concern is that of society as a whole. Freud’s critique suggests that he believes that the individual costs of morality are necessary for civilization to function. In essence, Freud is supportive of the demands of civilization. Freud would definitively reject Nietzsche’s claim that morality has prevented human flourishing. On the contrary, Freud would claim that morality has enabled human flourishing.

Freud and Nietzsche both offer compelling critiques of human morality that provide fresh perspectives on an extremely complicated aspect of existence. Although Freud and Nietzsche conceptualize morality in a similar manner, their critical approaches to morality are driven by much different motivations. While Freud seeks to outline the function of morality in society and civilization, Nietzsche attempts to explore the effects of morality on the individual. As a result of these different motivations, Freud and Nietzsche reach dramatically different conclusions regarding the value of human morality in our world.

The society we live in has this skewed way of looking at things. We pride ourselves as being honest, truthful, and upstanding, but are we really? If we go by what’s happening in society can we truly say that we are beings that uphold truth? Not that am saying that everyone is a liar, am just speaking to how we (as a society) have let things happen because we are too afraid to speak the truth. We have enabled this culture of untruthfulness and its bred contempt, and greed. In fact, the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his famous book On The Genealogy of Morals acknowledged how truth is influenced by culture and society and why it seems to be ignored or taken for granted in modern society(Cline Austine).

Society has rules and regulations that everyone living in it should abide by. And, for a while, they have been working, but just like the wave carries the water to the shore of the ocean, change is inevitable. Society is constantly evolving so whatever applied then will not apply now or in the future. Morality is what guides the truth. As a society, we have various tools or institutions that we use to ensure truth and justice is carried out, but the most important has always been the role of religion. Religion wields allegiance to one true God, and He stands for truth. Anything against him defies the moral ethics of the church, which could translate to society too. The point is Friedrich Nietzsche noted that the value of truth depends on the situation (Nietzsche Friedrich).

I chose to analyze Chimamanda’s Ngozi Adichie’s book “We should all be feminists” and “Harlem” poem by Langston Hughes because we have lived in a society that has marginalized minority groups for a long time. Since the colonial era, we have had a long history of injustices carried out. Things like atrocities, discrimination, slavery, mass killings, racism, and tribalism have plagued us for the longest time and unfortunately, continue to haunt us up to now. We have watched as genocides and slavery happened in the pretext of detachment or neutrality while protecting our best interests or supporting our allies.

Marginalized groups like Black Americans, Muslim women, Asian Americans, African slaves, Latinos, and Red Indians went through oppression or discrimination in history. The essay adapted from her TED talk (We Should All Be Feminists| TED) speaks of her experience growing up and living in Lagos, and how sexism played a role in how women are treated in Nigeria. For the longest time women have been socially conditioned to be well-mannered, agreeable, docile, meek, and silent. It is seen as a sign of respect, but the question is, are women silent because of fear or out of respect? Adichie decided to challenge the traditional, obnoxious and sexist ideas that have been propagated by the patriarchal state for so long and change the narrative of how women view themselves. In a world that has conditioned women, such that some women even support patriarchy, how do we recognize and unlearn some of the things the oppressive institution of patriarchy has taught us? This not only applies to African society only but also in the United States and all over the world. Look at the gender pay gap, the inconsistencies of men to women numbers in acting or politics, factories, sports (Ohagwu et al.).

It’s interesting because it’s going to take years before the perception of how society treats women will be changed. It’s deeply ingrained in the subconscious of women’s minds and trying to change the perspective will be an uphill task. Despite that, it’s not impossible to achieve. Adichie decided to speak against the unfairness and the glaring differences in treatment of both sexes. She told her story.

Telling her story has shifted the cogs in the brains of society. As much as she advocates for feminism in every aspect, we can no longer deny the truth, gender discrimination is prevalent in today’s society. It’s an injustice to both men and women. The current patriarchal system is also hurting men without them knowing it. Men are under a lot of pressure to be strong, and tough almost as if they aren’t human. Any display of emotion and feelings is seen as being weak without noticing the serious repercussions it’s having on men. Am sure there are many people who weren’t aware of the shifting gender dynamics until she spoke about it(Higgins Charlotte).

For Adichie to tell her story in a world where stories are written by men for their benefit is a milestone for men and women too. As Anne Elliot says in Jane Austen’s book Persuasion, “Men have had every advantage of us in telling their own story”. What about the rest like American, Latino, Muslim or African women

Of the many great attributes he had like writing essays, stories, and novels, poetry was the one he actively used to voice the plight of African Americans in the 1930s. Due to the Great Migration in the 1920s, many African Americans settled in Harlem and there was a sudden explosion of the Harlem Renaissance, which appreciated the intellectual, social and artistic talents of Blacks. In the poem Harlem, Langston asks, What happens to a dream deferred? “Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun or fester like a sore and then run”? He compares a dream to fruit or a bad sore. Raisins were once grapes but are dried up, in this line he’s trying to explain how something can transform from its full glory to something less attractive. Alternatively, his other description of a sore which when left unattended to starts oozing pus and all those disgusting exudates. Does it stink like rotten meat? Or crust and sugar over like a syrupy sweet? Line 6 to 8 of the poem is further visualizing how a dream ignored can be further detrimental and uses examples to explain these effects. This line “Maybe it just sags, like a heavy load” is like a warning, a strain, or a sign of something to come and from the signs of it, it doesn’t seem good. The last line “Or does it explode?” is the effect of what happens when something has been festering for so long without being addressed(Harlem by Langston Hughes | Poetry Foundation).

Langston Hughes wrote this poem in 1951, at a time when racism was rampant and the Harlem Renaissance was dying. The glaring discrimination and oppression of African Americans and even other minority groups was not funny or interesting especially at a time, when speaking had serious consequences such that people continued to suffer in silence out of fear of death or discrimination. Hughes was affected by the plight of his people all over America. He wanted to speak about the bitter ugly truth of racism, which unfortunately we still carry up to now. It’s shocking that we are still dealing with the same beast that was there in the 1900s only now it’s evolved into something else. It’s more subtle right now, in fact, you could miss it but it’s there. It’s masked in interesting terms like colorism or internalized racism.

Whoever perpetrated this superiority complex achieved what they wanted because as much as we fight racism, the effects it’s had on individuals has been the most profound. Obviously, at that time, Langston was dealing with cultural racism, but what he spoke on is still relevant today. He expressed the dreams African Americans had but could not fulfill because of an oppressive society. The frustrations, historical baggage, and societal pressure they endured. He had to constantly talk about things because that’s how you change the narrative and effect change, slowly but surely.

Obviously, there are great strides that have been realized towards gender inequality, but we still have a long way. By allowing people to tell their stories in the most authentic way, we are giving a voice to many people in the same situations; we are empowering others and encouraging truth. We have to continue talking about these uncomfortable topics until something gives despite what people say. We could also acknowledge as gender evolves, experiences are different but the moral of the story is we can speak for ourselves. Adichie and Hughes are good examples that speaking your truth can change things for the better.