Category: Friedrich Nietzsche

To begin with, Nietzsche uses the term genealogy to refer to the distinct methodology with which he studies morality. Rather than studying moral terms empirically, that is, by thinking a priori about what they mean, and how they are used in the current day, Nietzsche instead sets out to discover where these terms originated from, and how their related values developed throughout history. Specifically, Nietzsche wants to illuminate the subtleties of moral concepts by studying their linguistic and etymological development over time. The genealogy of morality, therefore, is a philological study of the origin and the value of moral concepts. Nietzsche was prompted to write about these concepts, and work using his unique genealogical approach, as a result of the common view in his era that perceived ‘good’ as a necessary concept. That is something that held meaning before it was used, rather than having its meaning dictated by how it was used. This understanding of morality was adopted by English psychologists such as Herbert Spencer, and it begins with a preconceived notion of what it means for something to be ‘good’. It then establishes this notion as a basis from which to analyze all morality, again using only a priori methods of analysis. For Nietzsche, this was a significant mistake that led to a widespread misinterpretation of morality. He argues that the “source of the concept “good” has been sought and established in the wrong place”. Put more simply, the tendency to perceive the meaning of “good” as something that has always been, and exists inherently to the word itself, is mistaken. Nietzsche’s critique of the English psychologist’s understanding will be further explored later in this essay, however, we can now understand what genealogy is for Nietzsche, and what his genealogical account of morality sets out to achieve.

In order to more thoroughly discuss Nietzsche’s notion of genealogy, we must analyze how his genealogical account of morality proceeds. Nietzsche introduces the work of Dr. Paul Rée both as having stimulated his adoption of a genealogical method, and as a counterpoint from which he actively distances himself. This “perverse kind of genealogical hypotheses” that Rée utilizes, while methodologically stimulating, was not an accurate analysis of moral concepts for Nietzsche. What makes Nietzsche’s genealogical account unique is the depth with which he studies morality and his treatment of moral concepts not as static or ‘inherent’ subjects, but rather as flexible traditions that have changed and developed as societies have progressed. The subject of Nietzsche’s account is thus unique, as he recognizes that studying the origin of moral concepts was significantly less important than studying the value of morality itself, which he focuses on to a greater degree in his genealogical account. Ultimately, it is clear that Nietzsche’s use of a genealogical approach to morality is a distinct form of philosophical methodology, which allows him to investigate and analyze moral traditions with significantly greater depth than those who study them purely a priori.

Now that we have outlined what genealogy is for Nietzsche, and in what unique ways his genealogical account of morality proceeds, we must demonstrate his use of this account to critique other moral systems. Firstly, Nietzsche argues that our seemingly intuitive understanding of morality is simply a product of historical innovation, rather than something consisting of inherent meaning. He shows this predominantly through his exploration of the etymological emergence and development of the value judgments “good” and “bad”. These concepts seem ‘obvious’ and ‘necessary’ to most people, that is, their meanings seem to be inherent to the words themselves. Good, we intuitively believe, has always meant a selfless, altruistic person, and bad has always been a person with harmful, selfish intentions. Through his genealogical account, however, Nietzsche effectively rejects this idea and argues that they are instead the products of gradual historical development. This first critique can be understood as his rejection of “English psychologists”, who were overwhelmingly utilitarian in their moral views, and who understood the judgment “good” to have originated along with those who were “good” themselves. Instead, Nietzsche argues, “the good” themselves established this understanding and adapted it to reflect their own values and actions. It is only through this genealogical approach that Nietzsche is able to argue and analyze this convincing perspective, as it enables him to study not only the present meanings but the development and emergence of each value judgment.

In understanding Nietzsche’s Genealogical approach to morality, perspectivism becomes pivotal to fully comprehending the concern felt by Nietzsche, particularly towards the slave revolt of morality, which this essay argues as being eternal to human existence. Through understanding perspectivism, one is able to critique the potentially myopic and futile nature of Nietzsche’s argument against societies revolt into alternative ideas of morality, as this essay theorizes, that society is always in a slave revolt, as the natural hierarchies of societies, will always render the latter of hierarchal dichotomy’s resentful towards the upper class, positioning them in a vindictive effort to spoil the happiness of these upper classes, driven by a vengeful ressentiment; pushing them to the position of those we consider the priestly. Nietzsche felt that through the slave revolt ‘meeks should inherit the earth, but under the meek, a new slave class arose, and again, the slave revolt became eternal. This essay will serve to interpret the essays of Nietzsche in the Genealogy of morals, to fully critique to what extent, Nietzsche’s concerns were futile and merely from a place of his own perspectivism, or if the slave morality, is inherently immoral, leading us to a future of inherent decay.

The ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’ and Nietzche’s concept of “the camel, lion, and child” discuss the meaning of life. Their topics debate whether life is meaningful and if it is, how does an individual find it. Both authors share their belief of existentialism. While Nietzsche explores the possibility of life having meaning, Camus proposes a new idea of accepting and living a life devoid of meaning.

Both philosopher’s philosophies reject Christianity as a means of discovering value in the universe. However, each philosopher’s conclusion differs from the other. Camus believes that individuals should embrace the meaninglessness of life. Instead of pursuing one’s meaning, humans should acknowledge that there is no higher metaphysical order. On the other hand, Nietzsche argues that there is a metaphysical presence in the world. However, according to him, human beings need to earn it through curiosity and facing challenges on a daily basis. Through this, a being evolves into Nietzsche’s ubermensch (superman). In simple words, whilew Camus proposes that life is meaningless, Nietzsche puts forth the idea of life having a purpose but losing its value.

Camus and Nietzche share similar views as well. They both have a connection to existentialism and support freedom of choice and thought. For instance, in ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’, Camus tells his audience that committing suicide is a choice made by an individual. He further explains the thoughts that influence the individual to make such a choice, while also discussing the the liberty associated with suicide. Furthermore, he speaks to his readers about the immense guilt and consequences suicide attempts bring to a person. Camus’s idea ofregarding the freedom to commit suicide ties in with existentialism, which connects him with Nietzche.

Through existentialism, Nietzsche attempts to portray metamorphosis, in which a person has the liberty to decide if he/she wants to be a camel, then a lion, and then morph into a child. Each stage involves specific characteristics an individual needs to possess and certain traits needed to proceed to the next stage. Each respective stage has different expectations that an individual has to meet through free will, similar to Camus’s idea of being suicidal by one’s own choice. Nietzche and Camus both base their concepts of life’s meaning on existentialism.

Nietzche and Camus describe the concept of purposefulness in an individual’s life. Although both authors believe in individuality and base their work on existentialism, each author feels a different way about life. Nietzsche believes that life has meaning, but an individual has to meet challenges and thrive to find purpose. However, Camus introduces a new concept of accepting and living a meaningless life to the fullest. ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’ and Nietzsche’s unique view of “the camel, the lion, and the child” have many differences but at one point shared the same beliefs.

Friedrich Nietzsche and John Stuart Mill were two ancient philosophers. Their theories led to two of the greatest philosophical views in society. Nietzsche’s theory focuses on human well-being and the good life. He believes that each individual should live their life by accepting the idea that we should not be afraid to live our lives. In his theory, he emphasizes that humans do what they do because they seek survival, power, and meaning. Nietzsche believed the morality of an action should not be determined by its intentions; instead, he believed the unintended actions were a better measure. He is also convinced that human beings should find the meaning of life through a ‘will to power.” The beneficial way to be happy is through self-interest in which every individual is responsible to think for themselves and achieve their individual happiness. Nietzsche’s ideal theory leads to his visionary view that humans should create their own values and not survive on religious values. However, John Stuart Mill’s philosophical belief was on Utilitarianism. His theory was based on the principle that individuals who performed actions that make other people happy are the right thing to do. John Stuart Mill natural philosophy leads him to believe that happiness is pleasurable and void of pain. He argues that happiness can be measured in quality and quantity and that the happiness that has more capability should be weighted more heavily than lesser pleasures. Nietzsche provides a stronger argument on ethics than John Stuart Mill because his theory provides a more efficient way to encourage individuals to think for themselves about what matters in their lives while John Stuart Mill focuses more on society’s happiness.

Nietzsche’s theory of the good life derives from the sense that you are succeeding at whatever you think is important. He believes that we should not focus on Christian rules because he believed they hold people back from being who they are. He also came up with the quote “God is dead”. With god being dead, according to the book, he believes that the Enlightenment had removed the existence of god and that we should be able to live freely and not focus on religion. Religion will make people feel guilty about their incorrect/wrong actions even if they have good intentions. Since Nietzsche focuses more on individual happiness, he believes that we need to accept what happens to us instead of regretting it. He believes that values are human creations that are meant to serve us. Because of everyone’s different moral values, they should create a method to find self-happiness.

Individuals should be able to think for themselves and find ways to be happy. For example, let’s say Jessica is a 13-year-old girl that attends middle school. She is considered different in everyone’s eyes because of her weight, her hair and the way she looks. Every day that she attends school, kids are making fun of her, calling her bad names, making fun of her weight, and also physically and emotionally threatening her. She eventually developed PTSD. With this illness, she often lives in a state of intense and sometimes debilitating anxiety and fear that can interfere with living a normal life. She ends up feeling helpless about the situation and turns to suicide. By killing herself, she will feel relieved and happy. She believed if she committed suicide she would be happy, but that is not the case for the people that care about her. If she continued to live on, she would have stayed miserable and unhappy. The action you take to obtain happiness should affect yourself not the people around you.

John Stewart Mill focused more on how happiness should be measured. He believes that happiness is the sole basis of morality and that people never desire anything but happiness. He believes people that sacrificed their own happiness to make others happy are considered the most noble. Our actions affect the people around us, and we should measure happiness on whether our actions achieve the greatest possible good for the most people. He supports this claim by showing that all the other objects of people’s desire are either means to happiness or included in the definition of happiness. Mill explains at length that the sentiment of justice is actually based on utility and that rights exist only because they are necessary for human happiness. However, I would challenge his theory because happiness should depend on yourself, not anyone else–not everyone has the same way to pursue happiness.

For example, Yan always had a dream to become famous. He believes that going to school will slow him down in achieving his dreams. However, his relatives always pressure him to go to school because they believed that in order to make it and be financially secure he should attend school. Every day that Yan goes to school, he’s not really happy there. His grades dropped and he can’t really focus in school because all he thinks about is becoming a rock star. Yan dropping out of school will make all his family members unhappy, but if Yan stays in school, it will make him miserable. So, what should Yan do? Should he sacrifice his happiness to make everyone else happy? However, Yan’s happiness is not the same happiness as his relatives; this why I would challenge his theory.

If humans have different things that make them happy then I believe you will need to develop what makes you happy and go on from that. Both philosophers Nietzsche and Mill believed that humans need to find happiness; however, their methods were different. Nietzsche emphasized that individuals should think for themselves and also do whatever makes them happy. Mill would criticize Nietzsche on his theory on how an individual should do whatever makes them happy because he believes that happiness should be measured and individuals should act or do what makes other people happy. A question he would have for Nietzsche is what if someone finds joy by doing evil actions. For example kleptomania.

“According to DSM-5, kleptomania is characterized by a repeated inability to resist the urge to steal. People with this condition experience a buildup of tension before the theft and a consequent release of anxiety and tension when committing a theft. Stealing results in feelings of gratification, relief, and even pleasure”. So what if what a person stole something that affected the majority of people’s happiness? For example, One day John went to the park, and he encountered a family celebrating their wedding anniversary. The wife placed her wedding ring on the table. The ring was passed down from generations and was really important to that family. When John had an opportunity he decided to steal the ring. He doesn’t really need it but, by him stealing it will relieve pressure and also grant him pleasure. The ring he stole affected the whole family. A question Mill would suggest to Nietzsche’s is what would one do about this situation? Is better to find your happiness by doing things that make you happy or is it best to preserve your happiness by keeping the majority of people happy?

Fredrich Nietzsche and John Stuart Mill theory’s both have a valid point. They both believe that an individuals need to be happy however, their methods were different. Fredrich Nietzsche theory provided a more concrete way for an individual to be happy. He believes that individuals should do whatever makes them happy they should be responsible to think for themselves and find ways they can be happy. While Mill believes that happiness should be measured. He believes that making majority people happy is the right thing to do. Your Pleasure is not more valuable than anyone else and through utilitarianism they would be a balanced. However, to pursue happiness it should come from what you want to do, not by making others feel better.