Smith (5) defines theism as the belief in one or more gods. Atheism, is therefore the absence of belief in the existence of god and one who posses such a belief is termed as an atheist. This belief was rampantly witnessed in Europe especially in the last quarter of the 19th century and the first two decades of the 20th century. This essay argues for Nietzsche as an accurate reflection of the forces of science and atheism in Europe.
Arguments for Nietzsche reflection of forces of science and atheism in Europe
Nietzsche views modernity not just as advancement but also as detrimental and precarious break with tradition. His new belief is associated with its ability of using and governing science, politics and religion for the sake of high culture. It is however important to note that, statements opposing religion usually outdo the statements in support of religion and therefore it is easy to lay stress on his anti-religious view.
As much as he is regarded as an atheist who celebrates in the death of god, he calls it the greatest manifestation in a hundred acts reserved for the next two centuries in Europe, that is, the most horrifying, uncertain, and possibly the most hopeful of all spectacles. In fact, he calls for an abolition of Christianity, a sort of cycling out. He further calls for an antichrist movement to save the world from Christians dilapidation.
Nietzsche also asserts the limitation that Christianity promotes buy calling it religion of pity. He writes, What is to be feared, what has a more tragic outcome than any other disaster, is that man should inspire not profound fear but intense sickness; also not great fear but great pity (Nietzsche, 122-3). He believes that this pity, endorsed by Christianity, only initiate further weakness in the weak and that it only comforts the weak in their miserable situations and persuade them to remain there, not aspiring to greater feats.
From his feelings that Christianity has become a mere tradition for his generation, but has lost its religious meaning and the reasons behind it, one would easily conclude that Nietzsche is truly advocating for atheism in the Europe. For him, Christianity simply postulates a denial of mans instincts, which are directed towards strength.
While other philosophers value Christianity and even attempts to tear away the peculiarity of Christendom and return to more genuine Christianity, Nietzsche sees it as irredeemable. In fact, May (14) presented Nietzsches argument against Christianity in Nietzsches Ethics and his War on Morality.
Writing that, Christianity brings about weakness, dilapidation, and misery and that its claim to promote love, light and life is simply false. (39). He further argues that Christianitys basic principle, the ascetic ideal denies ones natural ability to be stronger, enhanced, and more powerful.
Nietzsche also believes that community is a further fault of Christianity rather than a benefit, as a Christian might believe, he further claims that it does not advance ones own greatness, but concerns itself with the good of other Christians, and as such reduces itself and its capabilities by doing so (123). Additionally, Nietzsche associates Christianity with a sort of slaves or direct morality, which is composed of the violated, oppressed, suffering, and not free (Nietzsche, 207).
In conclusion, it is evident that Nietzsche wants us to believe in the philosophy, and that his program is possible and essential. His argument is that this is the only means to express the course of progressively more debauched West. He however has a lot to contribute to the debate on politics and religion, if only because he disputes peoples liberal responsiveness on the need to disconnect church and state.
Works Cited
May, Simon. Nietzsches Ethics and his War on Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil, Trans. Walter Kaufman. New York: Random House, 1966.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Genealogy of Morals, Ed. Walter Kaufman. New York: Random House, 1967.
Smith, George. Atheism: The Case against God. Los Angeles: The Macmillan. 2003.
The philosophy developed by Nietzsche is referred to as Nietzscheanism and it politically and intellectually influenced every part of the world during the beginning of the 20th century. Nietzsche mostly believed in and utilized topics like social criticism, psychology, religion, ontology, epistemology and morality. Although he directly did not exhibit his philosophy, it is quite evident from his common view of our world which can be estimated through his works. Such a work is The Genealogy of Morals where he philosophically demonstrated the aspects of morals and values created by the human mind and explained them.
Nietzsche indicated that there are fundamentally two opposing values. The two opposing values, good and bad, good and evil, have fought a dreadful, thousand-year fight in the world (Nietzsche 31). Nietzsche had a very evocative style and also he often made outrageous claims due to which his philosophy generated universal passion. Reviewing Nietzsches earliest works we find that he emphasized on an opposition towards Dionysian and Apollonian impulses of art. However, he points out that the values are dependent on perspective. He clarifies; The question, What is the value of this or that table of values and morality? will be asked from the most varied standpoints (Nietzsche 33). His major currents included figure of Dionysus, will to power, a claim that God is dead, radical perceptions and the division between the moralities of master and slave. For example, he indicated, The knightly-aristocratic values are based on a careful cult of the physical, on a flowering, rich, and even effervescing healthiness (Nietzsche 16). This is the fundamentals of his philosophy and the aspects of values is dependent on it.
His views of values is based on the parameters of Existentialism. It is a modern philosophy which considers human subjects to be the starting point of their philosophical thoughts out of these values. He way of looking at the world included the individuals conditions of existence, feelings and actions in their philosophy. Nietzsche focuses on the way by which humans discover their existence in the world and thus, according to it human existence comes first and only after that does every individual spends their entire lifetime changing their basic nature and spirit. Simply put the Values of Nietzsche can be thought of as one which focuses on finding ones self and also the meaning of an individuals life by means of personal responsibility, free will and choice. Individuals try to find out throughout their lives what they are and make certain changes, reflected through Values, in their lives based on their outlook, experiences and beliefs. These personal changes and choices are completely unique and do not require to be objective. According to Nietzsche, an individual must be responsible for the changes in their life and choose them without considering traditions, laws or ethnic rules. Also, an individual is also at his best when he has to fight for his life against his basic nature and suffers in the process and It was out of this pathos of distance that they first arrogated the right to create values for their own profit and to coin the names of such values . (Nietzsche 11)
Nietzsche utters, Under what conditions did Man invent for himself those judgments of values (Nietzsche 3). The answer can be found in his philosophical approach. The essence the Value system by Nietzsche also refers to change in the form of revolt. The fundamental concepts of our modern industrial society were formed in the 17th century as a result of a revolt and thus Existentialism also reflects the changes in the industry. The Values can be viewed as a revolt against the various features that existed in the industrial society before the 17th century. People constantly protested against the attitude of the industrial society in those times which finally resulted in its change today. When man protested against the belief that he was a mere element of the social process consisting of production and consumption procedures, it reflected the feeling of meaninglessness, estrangement and finitude in man.
However, it should be noted that the primary focus of morality and value was on the way the world was changing, mostly because of the Industrial Revolution in Europe. A world which had once seemed orderly and dominated by religion was now dominated by society, and because so much new technology was introduced, the world, for the most part, was starting to feel chaotic to most individuals. As such, philosophers attempted to define and describe what was going on around them. In Nietzsches own words it can be state that The value of these values was taken for granted as an indisputable fact, which was beyond all question (Nietzsche 6).
Thus, Nietzsche indicates that there is a constant construction of good and bad and good and evil and the construction of these values is based on the parameters of morality. This morality is based on the basis of changing time and society. Thus, it is evident that the values indicated by Nietzsche are fundamentally related to the position of society and its moral constructions.
Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. The Genealogy of Morals. Trans. Horace Barnett Samuel. NY: Courier Dover Publications, 2003.
In the genealogy of morality, I find Nietzsches account of the development of guilt an attempt to overthrow the moral norms that govern society. In describing the origin of guilt, Nietzsche claims that responsibility is not achieved through individual volition, but by punitive punishments, coercion, and conditioning by laws. He refers to the debtor-creditor relationship in particular, where the former is left at the mercy of the latter. Nietzsche errs gravely in saying that the sovereign individual, by being independent of social norms, is held accountable by the authority of his promise, reason why the debtor should over his body to be tortured by his creditor.
This is a horrendous claim that insults mans humane nature, which is not governed by the dictates of the conscience and promises alone, but by his inherent human quality to differentiate right from wrong. He erroneously claims that the individual is an independent sovereign, the master of free will and therefore not subject to societal demands. But the outrageousness of his moral excursion is in his emphasis that by themselves, (without coercion instruments) human beings could not develop a sense of responsibility in society. Similarly, his changing historical perspective of mans conception of morality (transition from promise to conscience, to punishment and civil laws) suggests that our understanding of individual responsibilities to society is not fixed and will keep on changing. This claim implies that righteousness or evil is arbitrary, since man has held different notions of the same over time.
Nietzsches first assault on morality as a social norm is rather indirect, for he glorifies the supreme being with the autonomy to decide on his own the standards he will uphold, and he promises he will keep. Accordingly, guilt is not suffered in the event that either by omission or commission justice is compromised, since the person did not make any promise to act in any respect. Nietzsche argues that a person is only responsible for what he promises to uphold.
At this point in his genealogy of responsibility, he implies that individuals were held responsible if they promised to act in a certain way or committed themselves to a given course, and then failed or reneged on their promises. Consequently, one becomes guilty of theft if that person steals after promising that he/she will never steal. But now that he is independent, master of free will and has the right to recognize his own standards, he can decide that a little thieving and pinching of public coffers is right. Before he withdraws this promise, he is as innocent as an unconscious toddler of any wrongdoing related to theft.
The second claim that stems from his insight- if I dare call it that- is that the sovereign being identifies with and respects those like him. He says, And just as it will be necessary for him to honor those like him, the strong and dependable (who are entitled to make promises)- who makes promises seriously, rarely, and slowly& (Nietzsche, 123). If people were to solely commit themselves to the promises they make as independent sovereigns to gain a sense of guilt, then society will be plagued with individual conflicts and blatant violation of societal norms which contradict individual promises. At the same time, the individual becomes a victim of his own promises, upon which he is judged. Thus, while Nietzsches argument ignores the role of social norms in shaping peoples attitudes and behaviors, it also argues against itself since, in the end, the individual is not master of his promises, but subject to them as they must be fulfilled.
But to fulfill these promises, Nietzsche posits, the individual needs a painful reminder that he is responsible for this and that. Accordingly, he hails the history of Germany, for the shameful (Nietzsche doesnt see it as such) distinction of inventing the cruelest design of human torture. He brags, we Germans certainly do not think of ourselves as an especially cruel and hard-hearted people, even less as particularly careless people who live only in the present&our penal code shows how much trouble it takes on this earth to breed a People of Thinkers (Nietzsche, 158). Indeed, more than half a century later, the world witnessed human cruelty and brutality in its extreme, when Hitler tortured and massacred millions of Jews in gas chambers.
Finally, Nietzsches conception of responsibility reflects the harsh Grecian form of justice, portrayed in Shakespearean literature. In Merchant of Venice, the character Shylock refuses financial compensation from his debtor Antonio, preferring instead to chop a pound of flesh from his victim. The same twisted view of justice and responsibility is seen in Nietzsches long history of morality when he suggests that punishment and cruelty are necessary ingredients of justice, if not for responsibility, then for the sake of massaging the wronged persons ego. If punishment and cruelty make responsible citizens, then the purpose of Nietzsches genealogy of responsibility is to create a society governed by fear and malice.
Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Good and Evil, Good and Bad. On the Genealogy of Morals. 2009. Web.
Based on a consistent and critical review of the essential approaches to understanding violence in modern political and philosophical literature, several hypotheses can be mentioned as the core of the theory of political violence. Nietzsche examined these hypotheses in his works; he did not distinguish between politics, reason, and violence, but instead tried to prove their relationship. The purpose of this paper is to analyse Nietzsches views on political violence, to discuss his criticism of nihilism and nationalism, as well as to consider his ideas in the context of modern politics.
Nietzsches View of Conflict and Political Violence
Violence is not an accident, but a part of the category which is referred to as politics. Violence should be included in the definition of politics itself because the primary goal of politics is the organisation of society. It follows that the significance of violence for politics cannot be limited to the role of the means. In other words, politics is always violent, although the forms and goals of this violence can vary depending on the political context (Fox, 2018). Politics is a historically stable relationship between reason and violence, and in this perspective, it represents conflict and never has an insoluble contradiction.
However, the opposition between reason and violence in politics does not mean that the latter turns into violence and is inseparable from it. Such a difference is present only in abstract theory, but not in the structure of practice, in which violence is a necessary way of affirming and self-preservation of the mind of a given historical type (polis, cosmopolitan-imperial, liberal, and any other). In practice, the contradiction of politics is that the violence of the dominant mind can generate reasonable violence of resistance (Habermas, 2018). Undoubtedly, Nietzsches political philosophy was rooted in an anti-democratic sentiment. It was this view, as well as the sharp hostile attitude towards socialism, that was later widely used in fascist rhetoric. Nietzsche gave occasion to this with his contempt for the crowd, the preaching of power, the cult of Superman (leader).
Furthermore, Nietzsche justifies the legitimacy of privileges, advantages, and inequalities, rejecting the idea of equality and freedom (Appel, 2019). Thus, the law is seen as a derivative of power, and its source is reflected in the law of war. The logic of the philosopher is based on the statement that right is an advantage, and such an advantage should be determined by being (Appel, 2019, p. 45).
Nietzsches attitude toward war is highly favourable, with his statements serving as evidence of this. He says that the blessing of war sanctifies every goal; therefore, there should not be long periods of peace in the world. Moreover, the philosopher connects hopes for a new high culture that would result from war. Nietzsche (2019a, p. 56) claims that In favour of the war, that is how it said: in both of these actions it barbarizes people and thereby makes them more natural; for the culture, it is the time of hibernation, a person comes out of it stronger for good and evil. Thus, war and military estates are prototypes of the state and will be used for its advancement.
Nietzsche On Nihilism
Nihilism refers to a philosophical movement that does not recognise the rules and authorities established by society. A nihilist is an individual who shares such a worldview and calls into question any generally accepted norms (Gertz, 2019). This term has been steadily gaining popularity in multiple areas such as religion, culture, law, and social relations.
When having considered nihilism as a component of public relations, it can be found out why it had appeared and at what time. Therefore, it is essential to analyse the principles and views of nihilists and the goals that they usually pursue. The general meaning of the term nihilist is defined as the denial by the individual of certain things, such as the meaning of existence, the presence of authorities, and the worship of religious idols. Nietzsches approach is radical nihilism, which requires a revisionist approach toward the reappraisal of cultural, philosophical, and spiritual values.
His European nihilism reduces to some basic tenets which the philosopher must proclaim with harshness, without fear and bias. Nietzsche (2018, p. 30) claims that nothing is true anymore; God is dead; there is no morality; everything is allowed. Nietzsche must be precisely understood as he seeks, in his own words, not to handle complaints and moralistic wishes, but to describe the future that cannot manifest.
According to Nietzsches most profound conviction, which is that the history of the late 20th century should not be rejected in any way, nihilism will become a reality for many people at least for the next two centuries. European culture has been developing under strain, which is continuously exasperating, bringing humanity and the world closer to disaster (Clark, 2019). Nietzsche declares himself the first nihilist of Europe as well as the philosopher of nihilism and the messenger of instinct in the sense that he portrays nihilism as an inevitable occurrence and calls to understand its essence.
Nihilism can be a symptom of a final decline in will directed against being. Nietzsche (2019b, p. 6) states, what is bad? everything that results from weakness . And nihilism of the strong can and should become a sign of recovery, the awakening of a new will to live (Drolet, 2020, p. 89). Without false modesty, Nietzsche (2019, p. 7) declares that in regards to the signs of decline and beginning, he has a special instinct, which is stronger than in any other person.
Overall, Nietzsche adhered to the perspective of denying the existence of God and underlining the failure of Christianity as a religion. The principles of nihilism are always close to reality, and the reasoning behind its key provisions is based only on facts (Alan, 2018). A nihilist is a person who approaches every occurrence with sceptic doubt and suspicion; however, in many ways, it is crucial to find an alternative explanation for a phenomenon. Due to Nietzsches contribution to the study of the term, nihilism acquired the status of a philosophical category.
Nationalism as the Category of Nihilism
Nationalism is an ideology that puts the nation at the head of the state as the highest form of unity and the focus of all its efforts. It is an ideology and politics based on the idea of national exclusivity, often leaning in the direction of national superiority (Gilbert, 2018). Therefore, nationalists are individuals who consider their state superior compared to others. Nationalism initially appeared when Medieval Europe was divided into hundreds of small principalities, and the common folk of that time did not care which master to serve.
In Medieval times, most people shared linguistic, class, religious, and cultural characteristics. There could be no question of the unity of the broad masses because of their belonging to one person, a master. Moreover, religion served as a link for people as they recognised themselves as parts of a single Christian church. However, everything changed in the 18th-19th centuries, when the position of Christianity was shaken by numerous divisions and the overall secularisation of Europeans consciousness (Van Ginderachter and Fox, 2019). It was necessary to find a new idea that would unite people, which explains why nationalism is often referred to as the civic religion.
There is a definite connection between Nietzsches nihilism and nationalism. When it comes to the reappraisal of values, the nation has the highest priority. Therefore, a person must be devoted to the national state and set its interests above the personal ones. Within the nationalist framework, there is a call for self-giving, and the willingness to sacrifice ones life in the name of the nation (Ohana, 2018). A nation is the primary source of political power, with all its members entitled to participate in processes that are put in place to achieve superiority. Following this logic, those who ascribe to the principles of nationalism are symbolically equated with the elite.
The popularisation of nationalism turned resulted in Nietzsche unfavourably. The philosopher who presented himself as the propagandist of the freedom of spirit, was deemed an apologist for the totalitarian tyranny and anti-Semitism. It is essential to dispel the prejudice regarding Nietzsches anti-Semitism and the closeness of his worldview to the Nazi ideology. Contrary to popular belief, Nietzsche did not think of Superman as the bearer of death.
In the philosophers perspective, Superman represents a thinker, an artist, and an intellectual. In general, he wrote about races being dominant and weak in the context of moral and intellectual differences. The race of gentlemen represents a strong personality, high self-esteem, and a sense of pride. The weak race is considered cowardly, it will usually humiliate people for its benefit. The philosopher did not worship his nation, admitting that modern Germans appeared to have anti-French stupidity, then anti-Jewish sentiments, and then the opposition to Prussian nations.
Political Violence in the Modern World
The modern world has significantly adjusted the political power of violence. The changes aligned with the coming of the information characterised by the manipulation of the masses censoriousness. Therefore, there is a dichotomy of voluntariness and coercion that ceases to be unambiguous. For example, modern election campaigns or intrusive advertising use media to urge people to vote for a particular candidate, or buy a specific product, thus manipulating the public into making a decision that may not be favourable to them.
One of the most influential discourses on collective identity in the modern world is nationalism. In the post-Cold War era, the ideology has been facilitated by the unfolding of particularly large-scale and fierce ethnic conflicts, which are increasingly taking the form of international ones (Stavenhagen, 2016). Today in the world, there are about 160 zones of ethnopolitical tension. For example, the struggle of Catalonia for separation from Spain and the declaration of their national independence bears significant nationalistic undertones. (Dowling, 2017). Often the cause of ethnic conflicts is the organisations of a nationalistic nature, which proves Nietzsches point of view about the negative influence of nationalists and anti-Semitists.
At the beginning of the XXI century, the world remains religious, with groups disseminating their varied ideologies across nations. Populations become even more religious than in the past since the number of believers is growing. In recent decades, the political importance of religious organisations has been increasing due to the threat posed by some of them (Madeley, 2019). Moreover, such organisations are increasingly expressing themselves in the public space of even secular societies. Religiously motivated violence can be directed, first of all, at other believers or non-believers. From a security point of view, the religious situation in the modern world is perceived as rather alarming due to the limited methods available for dealing with them.
Security threats posed by religion, in terms of both personal and national safety, are most often associated with Islamic fundamentalism. This is not surprising since it represents radical, politicised Islam that is related to the growth of the terrorist threat in the second half of the 20th and beginning of the 21st century, specifically after the Cold War (Lane and Redissi, 2016). But with all its fame, Islamic fundamentalism is not the only form of organised religious violence. Hindu, Jewish, Sikh fundamentalists may also take radical action and complicate the situation on a global scale. Nietzsche considered religion unnecessary in society since it does only rule people but also pushes them against each other, which, in turn, can end in a large-scale conflict.
Concluding Remarks
To conclude the present exploration, it is essential to summarise the perspective of Nietzsche regarding war and approaches toward power. Even though the philosopher supported the war and clarified its positive aspects in his works, he did not praise nationalism, ethnic cleansing, and anti-Semitism. In the context of modern politics, one can support his views on religion, since giving power to the church often leads to negative consequences. Also, the nihilist approach toward society questions all the informational impositions that are now quite common. Thus, it is possible to y separate the truth from a lie more easily and avoid getting deceived. In general, Nietzsches concept of nihilism, war, and the role of religion can be applied to modern politics both positively and negatively.
Reference List
Alan, W. (2018). Nietzschean Nihilism: A Typology. In Nietzsche. New York: Routledge.
Appel, F. (2019). Nietzsche contra democracy. New York: Cornell University Press.
Clark, M. (2019). Nietzsches Nihilism. The Monist, 102(3), pp. 369-385.
Dowling, A. (2017). The rise of Catalan independence: Spains territorial crisis. New York: Routledge.
Drolet, J-F. (2020) Beyond Tragedy and Perpetual Peace: Politics and International Relations in the Thought of Friedrich Nietzsche. Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press.
Fox, J. (2018). An introduction to religion and politics: Theory and practice. New York: Routledge.
Gertz, N. (2019). Nihilism. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gilbert, P. (2018). The philosophy of nationalism. New York: Routledge.
Habermas, J. (2018). Inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lane, J. E., & Redissi, H. (2016). Religion and Politics: Islam and Muslim civilisation. New York: Routledge.
Madeley, J. T. (2019). Religion and politics. New York: Routledge.
Nietzsche, F. (2018). The Joyous Science. London: Penguin UK.
Nietzsche, F. (2019a). Thus spake Zarathustra. Kyiv: Strelbytskyy Multimedia Publishing.
Nietzsche, F. W. (2019b). The Twilight of the Idols; or, How to Philosophize with the Hammer. The Antichrist. Glasgow: Good Press.
Ohana, D. (2018). Nietzsche and Jewish Political Theology. New York: Routledge.
Stavenhagen, R. (2016). Ethnic conflicts and the nation-state. Berlin: Springer.
Van Ginderachter, M., & Fox, J. (2019). National indifference and the History of Nationalism in Modern Europe: National indifference and the History of Nationalism in Modern Europe. New York: Routledge.
Human beings are different by nature not only in character, but also in logic. Therefore, a single issue can generate many arguments each with a different perspective. However, it is how one defends his or her own view that matters.
Philosophers in particular are known to have diverse views regarding different issues including life and death. Platos death practice argument and Nietzsches eternal recurrence are examples of such diverse views by philosophers. It is important to note, however, that the two philosophers do not give direct meaning in their arguments.
To begin with, Platos argument that philosophers should practice death is meant to advice all people, especially philosophers, to prepare for death. He views death as an imminent and only savior that will separate philosophers from the lies and inequities of the world. Philosophers should not be happy with the desires of the body such as food, clothes and other materialistic things.
Consequently, they should be ready for any possible way to extricate themselves from the body. According to the argument, death is a separation of the body and the soul. While the body is finite and has no use after death, the soul is immortal and is the only useful part of a philosopher.
Bodily desires and conclusions are viewed as inaccurate and misleading as far as a philosophers quest for truth is concerned. In this regard, the best realities of life, as well as the truth, are better approached in thought alone.
Practicing death will make people approach issues more confidently because they will have nothing to fear. The fear of death is what makes many people fear saying the truth. Consequently, when one is not afraid of death, he or she can be ready to say the truth boldly without fear or favor.
Similarly, practicing death will help one approach issues more objectively knowing that the body interferes with ones judgment. Additionally, the knowledge that ones soul is immortal and it is the one that matters will make a person more responsible.
On the other hand, Nietzsches argument means that everything in the world is just but a replication of what happened in the past. According to the argument, the world is recurrent and will continue to recur infinitely. Therefore, there is nothing new that happens in the world that has never been witnessed before. Pain, disasters, diseases and all other sorrows that are happening now or those that have happened in history will recur again.
As a result, man should accept suffering as part of life because there is nothing that can be done about it. Nietzsche argues that human beings have no control over what has happened, what is happening or what will happen in the future. The argument is similar to the reincarnation believe by the Hindu religion.
Unfortunately, the ideology might make people highly irresponsible knowing that they can only play a spectator role in the world. Moreover, it is crucial to note that nobody has ever come forward and claimed to be aware of what happened in the last part of his or her life. Consequently, subscribing to the idea will not change people in any way since they will be confident that their past deeds will not haunt them.
Of the two arguments, I prefer Platos approach. To begin with, Plato gives real life examples of how practicing death is vital to philosophers lives and by extension all human beings. Arguably, death is imminent in any human beings life, whether one prepares for it or not. Therefore, instead of living in fear of something that cannot be avoided, it is sensible to be ready for it, as and when it comes.
This is the ideology that the fighters of freedom in countries that were once colonized subscribed to in their struggle for independency. If they were afraid of death, their countries would be probably under colonial rule to date.
Arguably, great men in the history of human rights and other societal issues for example, Martin Luther King Jr., were aware that death would come if they went ahead with their endeavors but that did not deter them. Accepting death as a price that one has to pay for certain issues made them brave and even more vibrant in their quest for justice.
In contrast, believing in eternal recurrence is likely to mislead people. People can be tempted to stop working towards the prevention of evil in society. Anyway, it will be pointless to work tirelessly wasting ones energy in trying to prevent what will definitely recur. Moreover, it is erroneous to imagine that nothing changes in the world because definitely, the Earth is not the way it was 1000 or even 50 years ago.
Much has changed: some things have become extinct like the dinosaurs, while others have emerged. However, practicing death is also misleading by assuming that truth is found only when the body and the soul have separated.
That is impossible to proof and Plato does not provide any explanation to support the argument. Nevertheless, though they argue from different points of view, the two philosophers concur that the soul of a human being is immortal.
Friedrich Nietzsche was a nineteenth-century German philosopher, philologist, writer, poet, and cultural critic. He is still well-known and highly respected for his invaluable contribution to modern philosophy and intellectual history, as well as his impressive thoughts about the human spirit and psyche. Nietzsche was extremely interested in exploring the origins of Greek tragedy, as well as finding out to what extent art can influence and enhance the health and growth of individuals.
In his tremendously significant book, The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche discusses the nature of the tragedy and provides his profound ideas regarding how the Greek model may be used to understand the modern cultures decline and possible rebirth. According to Nietzsche, two powerful primary forces make art work, and he identifies them with two Greek gods: Apollo and Dionisius. The former is the rationale, calm, and logical power aiming to weaken and harness the latter, the dynamic and chaotic force (Nietzsche, 1886). This is some kind of a problem that means that the passion, enthusiasm, and even unpredictability of both Greek tragedies and the art and life of the nineteenth century were and are being repressed (Nietzsche, 1886). Thus, to truly revive the modern culture, Nietzsche considered it necessary to begin to pay more respect to Dionisius and his energy of chaotic life movements.
I agree with the philosophers opinion and think that this is precisely what is needed to make art more lively, energetic, and capable of awakening feelings and emotions. After all, this is precisely the purpose of art as a source of inspiration, passion, ideas, and dreams. Only such art can positively influence human health and growth. Moreover, since, according to Nietzsche, art and Greek tragedy, in particular, have two initial forces, they should always be and used equally for their influence to be balanced.
Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud were great scholars in philosophy and psychology during the industrial revolution. However, their work remains influential in modern philosophy, literature, law, religion, and psychology.
In an attempt to define the origin of religion and human civilization, the two philosophers presented several theories, which are largely reductionist.
Both philosophers have attempted to derive a theory that can effectively explain the origins of several human aspects such as religion, creation of god and moral conscience in a modern context.
In Freud Reader and Totem and Taboo, Sigmund Freud argues that guilt is a fundamental aspect that explains the beginning of human religion.
On the other hand, in his Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche argues that a superior society is created by the transcendence of artificial fear. However, both theories explicitly open a topic of debate that is crucial in the philosophy of religion, morals, and sociology.
Although both philosophers have attempted to base their theories on psychosocial, anthropological and ethnographic foundations, their assertions and theories are still relevant in modern philosophy.
Although their theories are significantly different, they are important in analyzing the human understanding of the origins of religion, morals, spirituality, and civilization.
Arguably, the two philosophers developed different theories to explain the same phenomenon, but both show a major similarity in that each philosophers aim was to establish the origins of human morality, moral systems and the process of moving from an innate-self to civilized society.
Freudian and Nietzsche view of religion, god and civilization
The origin of religion and civilization, according to the philosophy of Nietzsche and Freud, seem to begin with their inquest to the existence of god(s). First, religion is the notion of god(s). Along with society and its culture, religion exists within the sphere of anthropological studies.
Over a long time, these areas have been major topics of interest in philosophy. With the works by Nietzsche and Freud, the true intrigue to the origins of moral systems began in the late 19th century and early 20th century due to the industrial revolution in Europe.
On the genealogy of Morals: the Concept of Ancestral fear and its role in the origin of moral systems
Nietzsche, a German philosopher, developed his theory of the origin of morals based on the concept of ancestral fear. His thesis argued that the origin of god(s) is deeply rooted in humans fear of the ancestors.
In his book, Nietzsche argues that both pain and fear are important in the development of morals through the concepts of guilt and bad conscience (Nietzsche 56). He argues that fear and pain develops legal obligations of debtor-creditor in humans after or before a person takes action.
According to this theory, in ancient times, only the people who could fulfill their obligations or keep their promise had the right to make promises. They were not only free but also independent persons in ancient societies.
On the other hand, the majority of the individuals in those societies could not fulfill their obligations after a promise. As such, a creditor-debtor disparity could only be settled when such persons make compensations by offering their bodies, their children, spouses or their lives to clear the debt.
Nietzsche further argues that the debtors would gain powers over the creditor once the promise is not fulfilled. It went to the extent of infliction of pain on the debtor by the creditor.
The creditor had the freedom to inflict acts of indignity on the debtor by torturing, beating, assaulting, abusing or even mutilating the debtor or the spouse/children as a way of getting compensation on the debt.
Nietzsche seems to argue that this was a form of gaining pleasure, which would make the debtor feel satisfied. From this finding, Nietzsche argues that it is the origin and basis of all forms of punishment that have been part of human societies.
Nietzsche then proceeds to argue that the moral concepts of bad conscience and guiltiness developed from this method of fulfilling the debtor-creditor obligations (Nietzsche 23). Nietzsche takes the example of primitive races in the past as well as apes.
Among them, the common method of exercising pleasure was through cruelty against other individuals or other communities.
Since humans developed from primitive races in the past, the aspect of exercising pleasure with cruelty against each other is the basis of normal quality of modern humans.
One community or an individual would feel pleasure only when the debtor (an individual or a community) felt pain in some way, and the only way to do this was to act cruelly towards the debtor. In most cases, it always involved conflicts, fighting, war and spilling of blood.
Nietzsche uses this view of human nature as the origin of the concept of satisfaction of compensation by the debtor to the creditor.
Thus, this theory seems to argue that such legal structures as Tao and Law, in addition to categorical imperative developed Kant, are all factors of spilling blood and thus cruel.
A main important aspect to consider in this form of justice among the primitive races is that cruelty as a form of compensation to the creditor always enforced memory in the debtor. It is worth noting that infliction of pain through cruelty on a person or animals always enforces some memory.
By such means, Nietzsche argues that the debtor was in a position to get some cautions by remembering what should be done and what someone should not do (Nietzsche 17).
Nietzsche then explains the role of bad conscience and guilt. He argues that these concepts originated from the obligations within the debtor-creditor contract.
This theory argues that the debtor-creditor relationship has evolved alongside the evolution of human beings from primitive races to modern societies.
For instance, Nietzsche says that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor has evolved from the primitive forms of punishment in the ancient world to the modern aspect in which repression and internalization of human instincts of cruelty, joy, and torture are common in modern societies.
According to Nietzsche, humanity has been developed by imprisoning modern man so that he cannot exercise his instincts, which he desires to fulfill. Humans want to exercise their instincts and freedom but are prohibited from doing so.
Therefore, they look for an alternative by inventing or creating the bad conscience. Accordingly, bad conscience is the illness of guilty indebtedness. Humans invent religion to free themselves from the guiltiness.
Nietzsche then argues that since the biggest religion is the one with the greatest god, it is characterized by a greater sense of guilt. Here, Nietzsche gives an example of Christianity as the largest religion with the largest sense of guilt.
They despise their freedom for the sale of the sense of guilt and the religion invented. The argument here is that religion and morals have originated from the debtor-creditor relationship in the past.
Nietzsches theory then attempts to interpret the fear of ancestor based on the bad conscience. They recognized themselves to be indebted to their ancestors by assuming that the ancestors are part of the present generation.
They assumed that the ancestors played an important role in the survival of the current generations. They thought that without the ancestors, they would not survive. Therefore, to settle the debt, the tribal communities had the obligation to appease their ancestors.
From this aspect, the fear of the ancestor increased and evolved along with the evolving human societies. Also, as the power of bad consciousness and indebtedness increased, the power of the tribe escalated.
Similarly, the powers of the ancestors increased as the powers of the tribes grew over those of the others. Finally, the ancestors of the most powerful tribes increased in powers to the extent that they became their gods.
According to Nietzsche, this is the concept of existence and origin of the gods. Since the western world consists of the tribes that obtained the greatest tribal powers over the others in the world, the Christian God is powerful than those of the other religions.
Freud Reader: The origin of Morals, religion, and civilization according to Sigmund Freud
On his part, Sigmund Freud employs his psychoanalysis theories to examine the existence of cultural life and the origin of culture, religion, and morals. In his first writing on the Reader, Freud talks of Totem and Taboo.
Using psychoanalysis, Freud analysis the life of the primitive races to show how religion and morals came to be. Magic and Animism play an important role in this analysis. Freud associates the ideas of animism and magic critical in explaining the origin of religion and civilization.
According to this theory, a system of totemism exists among tribes where social and religious aspects or institutions are not in existence.
According to Freud, a totem is an object such as an animal, a plant, a natural phenomenon or a feature that is considered as an ancestor to a given group of people such as a tribe, a clan or a race (Freud 237).
The object is regarded as a guide, a guardian, an ancestor or a supernatural power that protects and governs the group of people.
However, in cases such as animal or object is destroyed, the individuals involved will feel guilty on realizing that the totem was their object of love, hatred, honor, wisdom, and protection.
Due to such guiltiness, tribes would develop rules and regulations as well as finding alternative totems that stood powerful over humans.
Such rules would prohibit people from dishonoring the totem in any way. Thus, this is the origin of guiltiness, which then proceeds to the development of morals and religion.
To explain this theory, Sigmund Freud uses western culture and religion as an example of how Totems and Taboos contributed to the development of religion and morals (Freud 288). Freuds Oedipus complex seeks to explain how Judaism and Christianity originated.
Freud has based his Oedipus complex theory on a Greek Mythology of the 5th century BC in which Oedipus killed Laius, his father, to marry his mother, Jocasta.
According to the Freudian theory of psychoanalysis, the Oedipus complex occurs in young children aged between 3 and six years (or earlier). This is the same time when libido and ego are formed (Freud 528).
Boys experience phallic stage in which their Oedipus complex develops a strong attraction to their mothers, which in turn leads to a father-son competition over the mother.
The genitals of the child become an important part of the body because they become aware of their differences with each other by identifying differences in their genial anatomies.
They recognize the differences between males and females. In infantilism stage, every boy experiences a strong attraction towards the mother, which makes him jealous of the father because the father has direct access to the mother and even sleeps with her.
According to Freud, the id drives the boy towards the need to eliminate the father similarly as Oedipus did in Greek mythology.
However, the ego and the principle of reality make the boy note that the father is stronger than he is- he cannot kill him. Rather, the boy remains jealous but afraid of the father (fear of castration).
Thus, when Oedipus killed his father and married Jocasta, he developed a sense of guiltiness after realizing that the father was his source of envy, protection and an object of his love. The sense of grief and guiltiness was so strong that he renounced his actions by developing laws of culture.
He prohibited murder and incest. Also, he developed rules and regulations to honor the father and the ancestors, including the Sphinx. This explains the origin of religion and morals.
For instance, Freud hypothesizes that western religions and cultures began with the killing of a primordial father (being), which then permeated into the consciousness of the western races.
For example, the Jewish religion was founded after the killing of Moses, who was the father-image to the Jews. Also, Christianity arose from the death of Jesus, who was the image of the Son of God.
This, according to the theory, is a filial rebellion against the father, and always leads to a feeling of guilt. To drive this argument, Freud seems to assume that the ancient tribes resembled that of the higher apes as described by Charles Darwin.
From innate being to civilized-society: Similarities of Nietzsche and Freudian theories
It is clear that the two theories largely rely on a historical aspect of the early tribes in their quest to explain the origin of religion and morals. The two philosophers attempt to interpret anthropological and historical aspects of communities, taking a tribal approach to the examination of the question.
For example, Sigmund Freud has repeatedly made references of the ancient tribes as the most effective representation of ancestors to the modern man.
Development of taboos and role of totems are critical in Freuds theory. These are explained in the historical and anthropological aspects of communities.
Similarly, Nietzsche relies heavily on historical aspects of early tribes.
For instance, it would have been impossible for Nietzsche to explain his theory without reference to the early practices among primitive communities such as cruelty, debtor-creditor relationships and the role of bad conscience in the development of religion, morals and civilization.
Also, Nietzsche also refers to ancient apes as described by Charles Darwin in an attempt to explain the origins of cruelty as a way of fulfilling debts.
Therefore, it is clear that both Nietzsche and Freud have applied history and anthropology to trace the origin of morals and religion. They argue that the old practices have developed and evolved into the modern ways of life, thus producing the current concepts of religion and morals.
It is also evident that both theories attempt to describe a strong relationship between the practices of the ancient generations with the present generations.
Secondly, the two theories emphasize on human desire and its role in developing practices, religion, and morals. For instance, Nietzsche argues that human desire to seek satisfaction and fulfillment of pleasure by being cruel to the other led to blood splitting.
As such, restrictions and prohibitions on the acts of cruelty against the debtor led to the invention of an alternative- the bad conscience. From this point in history, religion and the aspect of god(s) came to exist among different tribes.
Similarly, Freud has based his theory on the strength of human desire. For example, in the Oedipus complex, a boy-child feels the desire to possess the mother. He feels the need to own her due to her opposite sex that is attracting his libido.
However, the fact that the father competes with the boy for the mother creates a strong desire in the boy to eliminate the father, as Oedipus did in Greek Mythology. Although the boy cannot eliminate the father due to his weakness and the fathers strength, he remains attracted to the mother.
Freuds theory argues that this process of development that made Oedipus kill his father, but the feeling of guilt that overcame him became an important point at which religion in the ancient Greek began.
The desire to kill in Freudian theory is quite similar to the instincts of being cruel in Nietzsches theory. From these two theories, it is evident that the development of the civilized society, which has morals and religion, can be explained from the basis of human characteristics.
First, the innate self is responsible for the strong desire (the desire to kill or desire for cruelty). In ancient times, this desire was strong and drove people to kill, like Oedipus, and the ancient tribes in Nietzsches theory explain.
This desire is still present in young boys, but it seems civilization and development of law and order controls such desires.
Quite clearly, the development of religion and morals is strongly linked with the development of humans from the innate self to a situation where laws, regulations, and restrictions are made to prevent individuals from exercising their instincts.
Thus, religion and morals arose from these aspects of human nature. It is worth arguing that although the two theories are significantly different, they are important in analyzing the human understanding of the origins of religion, morals, spirituality, and civilization.
Also, the two philosophers developed different theories to explain the same phenomenon, but both show a major similarity in that each philosophers aim was to establish the origins of human morality, moral systems and the process of moving from an innate-self to civilized society.
Works Cited
Freud, Sigmund. The Freud reader. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company Incorporated, 1995. Print.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Genealogy of Morals. London: Penguin Books, 1998. Print
Insofar as human excellence is the psychological foundation for successfully navigating the activities of human existence, it is also a state of contentment. Human excellences are the characteristics that set an individual apart from the rest and make them the greatest of their kind. Philosophers of all time have spent considerable time debating what it means to excel. According to Nietzsche, the highest kind of human excellence is the ability to be oneself and to make ones own choices, as well as being self-content. On the other hand, Plato believes that the soul must be detached from the body in order to acquire wisdom and excel.
Nietzsches overman serves as an introduction to his thoughts on one of the most prominent philosophical discussions: the ideal human life (Gay Science, 275). According to Nietzsche, an authentic person is a fulfilled person. Therefore, one who does not just agree with the conventional wisdom of their society, nation, or faith, or, as Nietzsche puts it, one who does not go with the herd (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 135). In fact, the infamous God is dead proclamation agitates toward dropping long-held convictions and shifting toward an authentic way of thinking (Gay Science, 181). Nietzsche was particularly critical of faith-based worldviews since they were not committed to any version of truth. One of Nietzsches major criticisms of Christianity was that it fostered compliance rather than inquiry. The self-determining individual envisioned by Nietzsche is one who is unencumbered by the opinions of others and who acts of their own volition. He will occasionally be an outspoken critic of authority figures and established norms. To lure many away from the herd, for that I have come, Nietzsche asserts that the point of his teachings is to encourage authenticity as a virtue (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 135).
Nietzsche also stresses the importance of being content with oneself and the ethics of developing ones own unique sense of identity. People of the first rank are said to shape and interpret their environment as free nature: wild, arbitrary, fantastic, disorderly, and surprising, according to him (Gay Science, 233). Happiness can be achieved through the cultivation of optimistic perspectives on ones physical surroundings. Excellence, according to Nietzsche, requires that one attain satisfaction with himself (Gay Science, 233). Feeling complete on the inside requires one to devote themself to something, whether it is this or that poetry and art (Gay Science, 233). Nietzsche classifies people who are not at peace with themselves into these categories: vindictive, discontented, and pessimistic (Gay Science, 233). These passages are an excellent illustration of how closely he ties discipline and flair to authority, while laxity in either is equated with weakness. Such power of self-control and self-contentment is inevitably the prerequisite of human excellence.
The notion of the immortality of the soul is crucial to Platonism and is essential for assessing human excellence. Any such ideology must have some form of soul-based individuality as a premise. Additionally, the Phaedo teaches that people can enhance their everyday lives by gaining a clearer glimpse of the Forms. Since this perspective is at its pinnacle when the soul is detached from the body, doing so as often as possible can improve ones quality of life. In this view, the physical form is a barrier to learning. The dialogue makes it clear: Does the soul grasp the truth? For whenever it attempts to examine anything with the body, it is clearly deceived by it (Phaedo, 56). According to Plato, disembodied thought will lead us to a better knowledge of what we are investigating (Phaedo, 56). Thus, as per Plato, a person of excellence is not only individuated in terms of their physical attributes but rather in terms of their cognitive, moral, and historical peculiarities.
References
Nietzsche, F., & Kaufmann, W. (1978). Thus spoke Zarathustra: A book for none and all (Later Printing Used). Penguin Books.
Nietzsche, F., & Kaufmann, W. (2010). The gay science: With a prelude in rhymes and an appendix of songs (1st ed.). Vintage.
Plato, Cooper, J. M., & Hutchinson, D. S. (1997). Plato: Complete works. Hackett Publishing Co.
Zarathustra spent a considerable deal of his youthful time wandering alone in solitary places, in search of real meaning of life. According to Chapko, Zarathustra confesses that he is a wanderer and mountain climber who does not like sitting or wandering in plains (121). Zarathustra argues that, wandering in mountains is a pleasant experience, which is going to shape his fate, for he believes that he has control of his life and will not allow fate to overtake him.
He considers wandering in the mountains to be lonesome experience that makes one achieve greatness in life. Beginning his lonesome wandering, Zarathustra boards a ship and begins teaching sailors about the real meaning of life after two days of silence. He tells sailors that they are daring adventurers who have a lot of courage in that they can venture into deep seas. Aboard ship to a foreign land, Zarathustra observes that sailors are like him, for they have the courage to face lonely enigmas of the sea that complicates mystery of life.
Loneliness and enigmas troubles Zarathustra as he sails through the sea and talks to sailors about mystery of life. He asserts that happiness is somewhere between heaven and earth, and thus advices sailors to seek it in their lonely moments as they sail through the sea. Although Zarathustra waited for misfortunes to befall him before dawn, he was eventually happy when he waited in vain, and begins to turn upon heavens as a source of life.
He confesses that his wandering and mountain climbing were just actions of his helpless state for he could not achieve anything without heavenly intervention. According to Caro and Pippin, Zarathustra argues that he had been struggling to achieve blessing by becoming a blesser and yes-sayer (132). He learned that, a bit of reasoning forms the basis of wisdom and blessings. Arriving at dry land again, Zarathustra preferred to go into lonely mountains for he believed that solitary places are appropriate for one to achieve heavenly wisdom. He realized that people were getting smaller each day because they are modest in happiness and virtues.
Still struggling in solitude, Zarathustra appreciates winter climate because during it, he loves his friends and criticizes his enemies as compared to the summer season. He asserts that silence is his favorite art and malice because it does not betray him on the mountain during winter. Wandering in the mountains, Zarathustra eventually finds himself in a city, which he does not like because his life in the wilderness is not compatible to city life. After experiencing and observing the form of life people who are living in the city, Zarathustra spited on it because it had broken souls, sticky fingers and prying eyes, which were not in the mountains.
Zarathustra observed that apostasy had taken over the city and longed to go into solitude maintains and cave. In solicitude, Zarathustra have unlearned silence and learned that comprehension of everything requires apprehension of everything (Common and Scott 147). Eventually, Zarathustra identifies three evils that befall humanity, namely voluptuousness, selfishness and passion for power, all of which have corrupted minds of the people.
On the Hinterworldly
In his pursuit of real meaning of life, Zarathustra turned his quest into existence of humanity and God. He perceived the world to be as though a creation of a tortured and suffering god, who does not care about virtuous or evil things. According to Common and Scott, Zarathustra argues that the world look like a dream to humanity and gods fiction, which gives out colorful smoke that satisfies divine eyes (20).
He wonders why moral and evil, happiness and suffering, and different forms of lifestyles exist in the world. Therefore, he presumed that combination of all these forces is pleasing to creative eyes of a divine being. Due to the complexity of existence, Zarathustra concluded that god created the world because he wanted to examine himself.
Zarathustra asserts that the world is a contradiction of the creator because it is an imperfect image of god. To him, the world not only seems to contradict its creator, but is also an eternally imperfect image of god. When he casts his delusion of humanity and looks beyond creatures into hinter-world, he realizes that he underestimates divine powers to be like human powers. Zarathustra overcame his self, suffering and strength when he wandered into the mountains in search of solicitude. In solitary paces across the mountains, Zarathustra discovered that incapacity and suffering created the hinter-worlds, for they provide false happiness to people in hinter-worlds (Common and Scott 21). Poor knowing and lack of wisdom created hinter-worlds and all forms of gods that are particularly deceptive.
Zarathustra further asserts that contradiction of ego reflects weaknesses in abilities of human beings to discern their nature since ego determine value and measure of things. Honesty being is ego because it needs the body and expresses love to the body even if it fantasizes and poetizes about reality of life. Hence, Zarathustra admonishes human kind that they should no longer assume heavenly things, but delve deeply into heavenly matters that add meaning to life (Common and Scott 22). Hence, humankind needs to adopt new will that desires to tread old ways that human beings have followed blindly for ages in hinter-worlds.
Works Cited
Caro, Adrian, and Pippin, Robert. Friedrich Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra, A Book for All and None. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Chapko, Bill. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. New York: Feedbooks, 2010.
Common, Thomas, and Scott, Michael. Thus Spoke Zarathustra: Friedrich Nietzsche. New York: Michael Scott Publisher, 2009.
The following is a critical writing on Nietzsche based on his work called Thus spoke Zarathustra. The discussion is a critical approach of the thoughts expressed in his work. It will particularly explore four sections of Nietzsche work namely the prologue, the despisers of body image, self-overcoming and redemption. It looks into how the soul of the last man failed to realize its potential, which is the fully lived life of values and moral excellence. There are ways through which the soul of the last man can overcome the limitations.
The Prologue. In the prologue, Zarathustra starts by acknowledging limitations in men. He discusses his adventure that started at thirty years of age by living a solitary life to explore the meaning of life. Nietzsche argues that the soul of the last man is damned because he is unable to attain the set of the moral ideals set by the law (Nietzsche 121).
Man therefore tries to make meaning out of life like the saint in the forest who lives alone because men are too evil to live with. The saint composes songs and sings them to God all the time. Zarathustra laughs at him because according to him god is dead and the old man is not aware about it.
On the way, he meets dancing ropers who dance on a rope and as they dance, one of the men falls down (Nietzsche 122). The greatest worry that the man had as he died is whether he will go to hell and heaven. Zarathustra affirms that there is no heaven or hell. Man is just like an animal his soul dies together with his body.
His discussion does not appeal to lovers of justice and orthodox and they declare their hatred for him. To humiliate himself he carries the corpse of the dead, which is a humiliating act and takes him to the forest to bury him (Nietzsche 123). On his way back, he had an idea that the solution towards having an essence of human life is becoming a superman (Nietzsche 124).
A superman is someone who does not fear blasphemy or any religious inclination. He is a man who is not virtuous to please the society but does the right thing. The superman is a man who has fully conquered his fears, pride, and body and has mastered them to serve his purposes and create other supermen (Nietzsche 125).
Despisers of the Body. The second part looks into the despisers of the body. The despisers are those who fail to appreciate their bodies and view it as the cause of their misery due to the unwanted longings. According to Nietzsche in his work the body is the Self, it is sagacious. One cannot be a superman or attain perfection without the body (Nietzsche 146).
According to Zarathustra, the soul as well as the spirits is parts of the body and they are not separate entities striving to control each other. The body is like a playfield where the soul and the spirit are the instruments of play and the players (Nietzsche 147). The soul of the last man is unable to have full meaning and value of life as well as things because the last man had despised the body. They have low self-esteem and do not see the self as the master but slaves of forces of nature (Nietzsche 146).
The despisers of the body cannot be supermen. They bruise their ego by allowing outside circumstances control the appreciation of self and their bodies. The last man seeks to annihilate his body in order to attain the moral ideals existing in the society. To overcome this limitation the last men must appreciate their bodies, feelings and ego.
The last man must know that the soul and the spirit are dependent on the body and the body is the sagacious master. Therefore, the despisers of the body will appreciate their bodies and be on their pathway to becoming supermen (Nietzsche 147).
Self-overcoming. Self-overcoming is having the power to surpass and compel oneself to do something. The will is an ingredient of self-overcoming and must be subject to the spirit, which is the mirror and the reflection of self will (Nietzsche 225).
Self-will is the will to power; it is the desire to subject and master the environment. It is determinant of who will be either a slave or the master (Nietzsche 226). The ignorant people do not have self-will because they have surrendered to the forces of nature. They follow the path of least resistance like river stream by avoiding conflict (Nietzsche 227).
The will to power also calls for a surrender life in order to attain the power (Nietzsche 226). The soul of the last man cannot attain fulfillment and sense of life without having self-will. To overcome this limitation of self will one must constantly develop self-will by engaging in tasks that help master the personal confidence. It is mastering ones actions and deciding to do something impulsively without fail. Self-will is the pathway to power and becoming a superman (Nietzsche 226).
In addition, it is the difference between the master and the slaves as well as the follower and the leader. The leader is the person who has attained power by exercising the self-will to the extent of risking his or her life in order to lead. This is because as a leader one is responsible for the actions of the subjects and without self-mastery and self will the responsibility can be overwhelming and dangerous (Nietzsche 227).
Redemption. The fourth part is the aspect and the idea of redemption. It is redeeming what is past to be what it was (Nietzsche 248). The concept of redemption is subjecting ones will to the authority.
When discussing about redemption, the author looks into the idea of revenge as a concept of redemption where one incurs penalties of misdeeds in order to restore the soul of the last man. The other idea in this part regards human weakness and deformities. The author asserts that there is no one who is perfect; one is a big ear, a big eye or a big mouth (Nietzsche 249). The author expresses disgust over some people perceived as great men yet they have some weaknesses.
He defines a great man as an individual with little of everything and too much of one thing (Nietzsche 249). The author views revenge as part of human life as it is the only way of restoring the superman through penalties. It is also a way of perpetuating the values and sense of morality among human beings (Nietzsche 249).
The writer is critical of the idea of forgiveness as he views it as an act of submission and a weakness of the last mans soul (Nietzsche 250). Forgiveness is a limitation of the soul of the last man from becoming a superman. The pain exerted during penalties shapes the superman or the ideal man. Awareness that ones action will have certain penalties makes the self-will act accordingly (Nietzsche 250).
Conclusion
People must first accept that being human is a journey towards becoming a superman. Being a superman is attaining moral, spiritual and self-mastery, which is power (Nietzsche 122). People cannot attain this power without appreciating their bodies. They must stop despising the bodies and build them to the extent of knowing that they are the supreme rulers of their lives. One must stop seeing the body as a separate entity from the spirit and the soul.
The body incorporates the spirit, the soul and the ego. They all try to dominate and to control the body. Giving the soul dominance means that one attempts to annihilate ones feelings and bodily desires while succumbing to one emotion. In addition, giving the Self over to the ego leads one to pride. To maintain balance one must recognize the essence of the body that it is the Self. It is central and core to existence because the soul, the spirit and the ego cannot thrive out of the body.
To be a superman as well as a leader one must have self-will, which is an intrinsic as well as compelling drive to do something irrespective of ones feeling or challenges. To develop self-will one must embrace the concept of revenge and the law of repercussion. The actions must be compensated as per the consequences they have brought.
Work Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Portable Nietzsche, Translator Walter Kaufmann. New York: Penguin Books, 1982. Print.