Approaching modernism, the first thoughts that come to mind is its relation to artistic forms of expression, and partly such reasoning is true. Nevertheless, for the philosophical analysis of modernism as an intellectual direction such reasoning cannot be considered complete and satisfactory. The epoch of modernism can be related to substantial changes in the all-European world outlook, which was reflected differently through the works of different philosophers, authors, and artists.
Analysis
In that regard, this paper analyzes modernism as an intellectual direction, in terms of distinct ideas, through excerpts of works by Friedrich Nietzsche and Stephane Mallarme, presented in the book “The Humanistic Tradition” by Gloria Fiero. The paper states that the defining aspect of modernism, deriving from the word modern as innovation and change, was more of reaction and rejection during the period of formation.
Analyzing Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideas presented I his works and relating them to the main events of the late nineteenth century, it can be sensed that rapid technological development called for the his highly criticism of that time. Taking for example “The Madman”, a story published in “The Gay Science (1882), the narration portraits a man proclaiming that God is dead. In that sense, this story can be representative of the way Nietzsche, being an atheist, showed the decline of human morals.
It can be assumed that Nietzsche is praising the moral values provided by religion, whereas knowing the fact that he rejected the religion as an institution, it can be stated that Nietzsche points out to the fact that the materialism brought by the new technological developments will eventually lead to the degradation of moral values as they are merely based on the belief in God. Thus, if people lose such belief, they will lose the basis for their moral values; “Whither are we moving now?… Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left?” (Fiero 110)
In that regard, it can be seen what Nietzsche is rejecting. He is rejecting the world outlook, where people if freed from the bounds that were put on them, would state the moral values that are formulated on their own. Even if partly disagreeing with Nietzsche, his metaphor could be seen in present times, where many ethical considerations, especially for people refusing the religion as an institution, are based on pure opinions and at such created by the people themselves.
Additionally, Nietzsche in “Twilight of the Idols” (1888) rejects the idea of the moral criticism of the art, which can be seen as a tendency for the epoch of the end of the nineteenth century. “The fight against purpose in art is always a fight against the moralizing tendency in art, against its subordination to morality.” (Fiero 10) In that sense, Nietzsche is calling for locating art and beauty beyond the distinctions of the good and evil, or art for the art as stated by Nietzsche.
In that regard, this is also a rejection by Nietzsche, where it can be understood that being a modern intellectual is subjective rather than objective. There is no “right” work of art, but there is an appeal to the artist and a necessity to acknowledge the state through which the artist communicates, rather than the moral message that the artist sends.
In that regard, the ideas of Nietzsche can be seen as revolutionary or at least somewhat radical comparing to the works of other modernists. One of the directions of modernism that can be seen less “pessimistic” was symbolism. Without rejecting the subjectivity of modernism, symbolism “suggests ideas and feelings that might evoke an ideal rather than a real world.” (Fiero 111).
In the example of the poem “The Afternoon of a faun” by Stephane Mallarme, the author strives to describe not objects but the impressions and the feelings resulted from them, where the word does not designate the object but becomes a semantic association.
It floats like drowsing down
…
As cold and chaste as id the weeping spring
…
There is no murmuring water, save the gush (Fiero 112).
Conclusion
It can be seen that symbolism was deriving from modernism in its sense of rejection, where the perception of the world is also based on subjectivity, although more on the subjectivity of the artists’ intuition which reveals the world in “symbols.”
In that regard, modernism in its pessimistic form, seen in Nietzsche’s work or its positive view, it basically presents its idea of innovation, as a modern, by rejecting the previous foundations. And whether it is a work of art, or a poem, or a philosophy regarding religion, the main principle of modernism remains approximately the same. Additionally, it should be noted that modernism can be seen as logically occurring in correspondence to a certain time and conditions, where the circumstance of the end of the nineteenth century can be seen as unique in terms of the diversity of the events that occurred almost in one epoch.
Works Cited
Fiero, Gloria K. The Humanistic Tradition. 5th ed. 6 vols. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2006.
Friedrich Nietzsche was an influential modern philosopher who is remembered for his categorical disparagements of traditional European morality and religion, conservative philosophical ideas, contemporary culture, and political ideologies connected to modernity. Unlike his contemporaries, Nietzsche had a brief career. However, his writings played a significant role in influencing numerous thinkers and writers of the 20th century. His publications are significant to this day, and he is often cited as one of the most influential philosophers of the 19th century.
Biography
Nietzsche was born in a small village called Rocken, Germany on October 15, 1884 to Carl Ludwig Nietzsche and Franziska. His father, a Lutheran minister, died when he was 4 years old, after which his family relocated to Naumburg. He was raised by his mother, together with his younger sister called Elisabeth (Anderson). Nietzsche attended two schools during his childhood: a private preparatory school and Schulpforta school. He graduated in 1864 and attended the University of Bonn, later transferring to the University of Leipzig. Nietzsche named Arthur Schopenhauer as one of his major influences. He started writing while working as a professor of classical philology at the University of Basel in Switzerland. During that time, he began to desert his earlier ideologies that were based on the writings of Schopenhauer, instead of developing an interest in the development of modern civilization (Anderson). For the larger part of the 1880s, Nietzsche live in seclusion and published several literary works. For example, one of his most popular works, “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” was published during that period (Anderson). Other works, including “Beyond Good and Evil,” “Twilight of the Idols,” and “The Genealogy of Morals” were published between 1885 and 1890 (Anderson). These works contain his core philosophical principles that include the will to power, perspectivism, the eternal recurrence of the same, and the idea of the “super-man.” The last decade of his life was spent in agony as he experienced insanity. His mother and sister took care of him at different periods, and he died on August 25, 1900 in Weimar.
Philosophical Ideas
Nietzsche is famous for several philosophical ideas. However, the three major ones are the will to power, perspectivism, and eternal recurrence. The will to power doctrine was developed to respond to an earlier philosophy by Schopenhauer called “will to live,” which stated that creatures had an internal desire for self-preservation and they would go to greater lengths to guarantee their survival (Anderson). On the contrary, Nietzsche argued that life had a greater purpose other than avoiding death. He believed that the drive for power was the major driving force in living creatures (Anderson). Though unclear what he meant by the term power, he could have been referring to personal values like strength, assertiveness, and discipline.
The eternal recurrence doctrine states that time repeats itself, meaning that situations and events recur over and over again (Anderson). This was not an original idea as the Ancient Greeks and Persians believed in an eternal recurrence. He expanded the principle and applied it to modernity. This idea is best explained in his published work titled “The Gay Science.” He challenges human beings to embrace the good and evil that they encounter and perceive them as tests that enhance their growth.
Perspectivism is a philosophical idea developed by Nietzsche, which maintains that facts are nonexistent, because everything is perspective. He did not deny the possibility of the existence of truth. However, he argued that if it existed, human beings would be unable to determine its authenticity because of the inherent propensity toward bias and the inclination to explain phenomena using languages, theories, and cultures (Anderson). He recommends the testing of different perspectives to get the bigger picture and arrive at the truth.
Place in History of Philosophy
Nietzsche is among the most influential modern philosophers that informed the philosophies of many 20th century thinkers and writers in fields like philosophy, art, and theology. Through his writings, he contributed immensely toward the works of Sigmund Freud, Albert Camus, Hermann Hesse, Jacques Derrida, Martin Heidegger, Michel Foucault, and Carl Jung (Anderson). His philosophical doctrines have been regarded as among the most significant pillars of the development of modern philosophy in the 20th century. Nietzsche’s contribution is evident from the numerous thinkers that developed their philosophies based on some of his doctrines. He is a key figure in the history of philosophy because many 20th century thinkers were influenced by his works.
Conclusion
Friedrich Nietzsche is among the most influential philosophers of the 19th century. He developed several philosophical ideas, the major ones being the will to power, perspectivism, and eternal recurrence. He is responsible for influencing many thinkers and writers of the 20th century, among them Albert Camus, Hermann Hesse, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Carl Jung. He is an important figure in the history of philosophy because of the influence of his works on contemporary thinkers. Moreover, his opinions on morality, religion, and epistemology evoke mixed reactions and have been widely debated.
References
Anderson, Lanier. “Friedrich Nietzsche.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017. Web.
Nietzsche, the self-proclaimed anti-Christ, proposes a world devoid of a superior being and solely governed by individuals who have become masters by virtue of possessing stronger minds. Under this proposed new philosophical thought, the masses that are weaker due to a lack of natural insight, are subjugated to the rule of the masters. Under their rule, the masses are obligated to do as the masters have demanded because there is no higher authority governing their actions and every act they see fit is permissible. This system as proposed by Nietzsche represents the markings of a society devoid of morality. It begins with an examination of the truth and its value and asks a very poignant question as to why humans seek the truth and can this truth be discovered by uncovering the lies that exist. In his discussion of the traditional philosophers he paints a picture of the traditional philosopher as individuals who operate from a purely selfish vantage point. He denounces the notion that philosophers attempt to arrive at the truth. Instead he paints a picture of the traditional philosopher as one who engages in a systematic self-fulfilling prophecy in that they proclaim that they attempt to live according to nature when they actually embody the tendency to be tyrannical in nature. Much of this tyranny can be attributed to the fact that the philosophers begin with their perception of the truth and this perception serves as an active force in enabling them to embrace that perceived truth and reject the many possibilities which can also prove to have merit. Essentially he embodies the belief that traditional philosophers operate utilizing the notion that a proven idea or a perceived truth is much easier to deal with and examine than a whole realm of possibilities.
One of the most poignant beliefs examined by Nietzsche in his quest to determine morality in the absence of any form of deity is one that relates to the notion of free will. He engages in a debate with regards to free will and discusses two diametrically opposing approaches at arriving at the truth with regards to free will. His first approach brings to task the question of entitlement. He examines this in the realm of which individuals should be rewarded and which individuals should be punished and brings to task the notion of the correlation of determinism and free will. He carefully explores the notion that determinism serves to circumvent free will and effectively and efficiently weaken entitlement. In his application of entitlement he indicates that if free will does exist and one operates based on the tenets of free will, one should not be punished by virtue of exercising that free will.
Nietzsche’s second approach to the discussion of free will is one which is inextricably linked to the privilege of choice. In essence, he examines the elemental components of an action rather that the mere act. He is examining the notion of autonomy and what truly constitutes an autonomous act and arrives at the understanding that what is important in the question of free will is the rationale behind the choice to act and not the choices of actions. He removes the alternatives an individual has in his course of action from the equation of free will and replaces it with the action taken and the rationale behind that action. In so doing, one is free to attach a reward system to his/her actions. When examining the notion of free will in terms of entitlement and in terms of the privilege of choice, Nietzsche makes a clear choice of dealing with free will in terms of the privilege of choice. He indicates that only a selected few are truly afforded the privilege of choice and as such throughout his writings it appears that he refutes the idea of free will and in others he wholeheartedly supports it. For example, he writes:
“…and in general, I have observed correctly, the “non-freedom of the will” is regarded as a problem from two entirely different standpoints, but always in a profoundly PERSONAL manner: some will not give up their “responsibility”, their belief in THEMSELVES, the personal right to their MERITS, at any price, the (vain races belong to this class); others on the contrary, do not wish to be answerable for anything, or blamed for anything, and owing to an inward self-contempt, seek to GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS no matter how. The latter, when they write books, are in the habit at present of taking the sides of criminals; a sort of socialistic sympathy is their favourite guise…” (Beyond Good and Evil, p. 44).
Clearly from Nietzsche’s writing one can see an inextricable link between the notions of responsibility and free will. This is a common thread in a great deal of philosophical writing. For example Kant attributes a great deal of moral responsibility to individuals as they act on the basis of free will. For Nietzsche, however, there is a gray area on the subject since he does not always do a good job at distinguishing between responsibility and the privilege of choice. That is, oftentimes he fails to draw the line between saying that someone is responsible for a certain act therefore he/she should be punished or rewarded and saying that the end result of a certain act was created by an individual. Essentially, he does not always delineate whether an act should be accompanied by a reward/punishment or whether the act should be independent of a reward/punishment. This poses a problem for me in that examining the act within the context of reward and punishment paints a different picture than examining the act when there is no reward or punishment attached to it. He feels that free will should merely be the freedom to act based on the truths of nature rather that to act based on a reward/punishment system.
At this juncture, it is prudent that we examine the notion of reward/punishment and blame/praise. In the onset it appears that they may be used interchangeably but Nietzsche’s take on the subject is much different. In the opening chapters of his book, “Beyond good and evil”, he blames philosophers such as Socrates and Wagner for the current state of philosophy and is seen praising individuals such as Napoleon and Goethe. In his blaming and praising he does not attribute any reward to punishment to the actions of these individuals. He repeatedly criticizes his contemporaries and yet does not offer any form of retribution (in cases where he engages in blame) and any form of reward (in cases where he praises these individuals). This is a clear indication that he supports free will in the absence of retribution or reward and feels that any form of punishment or reward serves to pervert true free will.
Nietzsche’s “New Morality” is inextricably liked to the notions of agency and free will, however, there are places in his work where he adamantly belittles the notion of free will but in those very same places he also belittles the notions of will that is not free (in other words, he belittles the notion of both free will and its opposite). He is quoted as arriving at the following conclusion:
Suppose someone were thus to see through the boorish simplicity of this celebrated concept of “free will” and put it out of his head altogether, I beg of him to carry his “enlightenment” a step further, and also put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of “free will”: I mean “unfree will,” which amounts to a misuse of cause and effect. (Beyond Good and Evil, p. 21).
In examining this statement, it is prudent that we seek Nietzsche’s rationale behind this. From a reading of his works, one can discern that the primary reason for his rejection of the traditional belief with regards to free will is a self-serving one. On some level, it was his goal to instil guilt and foster a positive view of the world. He is aware of negative effects of portraying the majority of individuals as not possessing free will and speaks in great length of what he refers to as “a fatalism of the weak willed”. This in his opinion would hinder the engagement of individuals and thus serve to the detriment of the propagation of his “New Morality”. He goes on to state that “unfree will is mythology, it real life it is only a matter of strong and weak wills”. (Beyond Good and Evil, p. 21). He feels that true world order begins when those who possess strong wills dominates over those with lesser wills. On the individual level, he believes that the self only emerges when the strong wills of an individual takes an active role in organizing the lesser drives. One of his most prolific examples of this notion can be seen in his accounts of the development of Wagner as delineated one of his other works, Untimely Meditations. He can be quoted as saying:
The dramatic element in Wagner’s development is quite unmistakable from the moment when his ruling passion became aware of itself and took his nature in its charge: from that time on there was an end to fumbling, straying, to the proliferation of secondary shoots, and within the most convoluted courses and often daring trajectories assumed by his artistic plans there rules a single inner law, a will by which they can be explained. (Untimely Meditations,p. 2).
In telling the story of the achievement of Wagner, he delineates a tale of the emergence of a man of higher morals who can attribute his character to the fact that he is guided by a high level of free will and an inclination to dominate. This is the end result of his “new morality”. This notion is fully embodied when be speaks of how an individual acquires his/her character. He states:
“To become what one is, one must not have the slightest notion of what one is… The whole surface of consciousness – consciousness is a surface – must be kept clear of all great imperatives…Meanwhile the organizing “idea” that is destined to rule keeps growing deep down – it begins to command; slowly it leads us back from side roads and wrong roads; it prepares single qualities and fitnesses that will one day prove to be indispensable as a means towards the whole – one by one, it trains all subservient capacities before giving any hint of the dominant task, “goal”, “aim”, or “meaning”. (On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo, p. 9).
A closer examination of this brings one to the conclusion that for Nietzsche, most humans are simply followers and members of a pack. They are submissive and very rarely exercise free will. They are simply conduits utilized by the forces of nature to guide the natural order of things. Some individuals however are distinct from the pact in that they possess the ability to take an active role in nature’s design. That is, perhaps by circumstances, they are afforded the ability to exercise a strong free will and take full advantage of privilege of choice. These individuals, in his opinion, embody all the elements of the “new morality”.
One point I found interesting with regards to the generation of his day is the fact that he characterizes them is the fact that he feels that inculcated within them are the
“diverse standards and values, everything is unrest, disturbance, doubt, attempt, the very virtues do not allow each other to grow and become strong; balance, a centre of gravity, and perpendicular poise are lacking in body and soul. But what becomes sickest and degenerates most in such hybrids is the will: they no longer know independence of decisions and the intrepid sense of pleasure in willing – they doubt the “freedom of the will” even in their dreams” (Beyond Good and Evil, p. 208).
The implication of this is that individuals who are extremely strong in will accept the fact that they have free will as a given. He is seen as very positive and progressive in his thought. This is not evident in the beginning of “Beyond Good and Evil”, however, after reading through the entire book and reading parts of Ecce Homo, namely the section on “Why I am So Cleaver”, one can clearly see where he is heading. He speaks in great deal of his “new morality” and makes somewhat of an ambitious prediction for the future when he indicates that he feels “responsibility for all millennia after me” His very ambitious pronouncements can be seen somewhat in its tempered form in “Beyond Good and Evil” where he deals with responsibility of philosophers on a smaller scale. He essentially makes the claim that philosophers are ultimately responsible for making the common man act in a moral and just manner. This to Nietzsche the embodiment of the “new morality” and it is the responsibility of every philosopher to propagate this new modality of thinking to the generations that follow. This is definitely a strong burden to bear.
References
Nietzsche, F., Beyond Good and Evil, translated by W. Kaufmannn, Vintage, New York, 1966.
Nietzsche, F., On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo, translated by W. Kaufmannn and R.J. Hollingdale, Vintage, New York, 1969.
Nietzsche, F., Untimely Meditations, trans. R. J. Hollingdale, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1983.
In many ways, the extreme rationalism of Descartes, its traditional alternative and empiricist aspects and the debate between them, constitute the part of the Enlightenment which had the greatest influence in the nineteenth century. Descartes and other Enlightened thinkers were generally confident in their belief that they could use rational principles to solve problems of social interaction, just as they used rationality to understand and control the natural world. This belief led to the Enlightened faith in social progress and a corresponding optimism that the ideals of the Enlightenment would eventually culminate in a utopian society. Nietzsche opposed this Enlightened faith in progress as naive; however, it was here that he had the most trouble eluding the influence of Enlightenment. It was the Enlightenment’s utopianism that remained with Nietzsche even through his most radical critiques.
Often called the father of modern philosophy, Rene Descartes introduced a shift in thinking from the empiricist school of thought in which people believed all knowledge ultimately comes to us through our senses to the rationalist school of thought in which it was believed that human reason was the source for all human knowledge. Through this development in thought, he was also the founder of modern day mathematics and provided the framework for study of the natural sciences. His writings mark the dividing line between the empiricist school of thought and the rationalist school of thought. “Before his time, philosophy had been dominated by the method of Scholasticism, which was entirely based on comparing and contrasting the views of recognized authorities” (Vincent 2003). A great deal of this thought was based on information gleaned from the senses.
Descartes felt the only way to obtain true knowledge was to rely solely upon human reason while ignoring the senses. “His philosophy refused to accept the Aristotelian and Scholastic traditions that had dominated philosophical thought throughout the Medieval period; it attempted to fully integrate philosophy with the ‘new sciences’; and Descartes changed the relationship between philosophy and theology. Such new directions of philosophy made Descartes into a revolutionary figure” (Baillet 1693). For this, he is now known as the father of modern philosophy. Through this development in thought, he was also the founder of modern day mathematics and scientific method. In developing his ideas, Descartes wrote several books, including his “Discourse on Method”, first published in 1637, regarding the nature of existence and knowledge. This book is divided into segments Descartes labels meditations. It is in his third meditation that Descartes reflects upon the nature of God and determines that he does indeed exist.
In developing these ideas, Descartes wrote several books regarding the nature of existence and knowledge, providing us with plenty of material to study and has had tremendous influence on those who have come after him. One of his most often quoted statements is “I think, therefore I am” which was published in his book entitled “Discourse on Method,” which was first published in 1637. By studying the writings that led up to this concept as expressed in “Discourse on Method” and comparing them with further attempts to refine this idea within “Meditations on First Philosophy,” one begins to conclude that Descartes’ account of what is necessary and what is sufficient for knowledge does not make sense.
This simple-sounding statement of “I think, therefore I am” is the result of a discourse in which Descartes calls into question all of the assumptions he’s come to know as a result of the philosophical thought of his day. “I had long before remarked that … it is sometimes necessary to adopt, as if above doubt, opinions which we discern to be highly uncertain” (Descartes, 2001). To seek a higher version of the truth, Descartes felt it was necessary to question every assumption that had even the shadow of a doubt. Through this questioning process, he demonstrates how thought, not observation is really the right foundation for knowledge. “When I considered that the very same thoughts (presentations) which we experience when awake may also be experienced when we are asleep, while there is at that time not one of them true, I supposed that all the objects (presentations) that had ever entered into my mind when awake, had in them no more truth than the illusions of my dreams” (Descartes, 2001). His idea of discovering truths about the world was defined by whether he had a clear and distinct perception of them and that was sufficient for knowledge.
However, the idea that knowledge can be defined by a “clear and distinct perception” is foiled by its own dependence on the senses. Descartes argues his way out of this idea by indicating that in order to fool a mind, a mind must first exist. “But there is I know not what being, who is possessed at once of the highest power and the deepest cunning, who is constantly employing all his ingenuity in deceiving me. Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived; and, let him deceive me as he may, he can never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I shall be conscious that I am something” (Descartes, 1989). Regardless of the way in which it’s presented, though, there is a hole in the logic that states thought instead of the senses is the basis for truth while the evidence of correct thought is a clear and distinct sense that what is thought is correct. In his arguments regarding the nature and existence of God, Descartes goes on to say that it does not matter whether we are dreaming or not because whatever our intellect tells us is true is, in fact, true. This directly contradicts what he said earlier regarding dreams being little more than impressions that did not exist and did not necessarily represent what was true.
Therefore, in pursuing a definition of the truth, Descartes came around full circle. From denying the existence of everything that had the shadow of a doubt, including everything known through the senses and seemingly intuitively, he argued his way through the idea that thought completely separated from sense was the necessary basis for knowledge and that the only correct thought was thought that carried with it the sense that it was clear and distinct. Through the meditations included in “Meditations on First Philosophy,” Descartes presents his logical sequence leading to the idea that since God exists, all knowledge must come from him and therefore, whether we are dreaming or awake, our perceptions of our reality must be real. It’s a self-contradicting circle that simply doesn’t make sense when taken in its entirety. Although there are some significant holes in Descartes’ logic that have been pointed out throughout the centuries since he wrote it down, Descartes’ procedure of doubtful questioning, constantly bringing his assumptions under suspicion, helped to change the course of modern philosophy, raising significant questions regarding the nature not only of the universe, but of knowledge and the separation between the body and the mind.
One quote that commonly agreed with in Friedrich Nietzsche’s book On the Genealogy of Morality can be found in the first treatise, second section: “Rather it was ‘the good’ themselves, that is the noble, powerful, higher-ranking and high-minded who felt and ranked themselves and their doings as good, which is to say, as of the first rank, in contrast to everything base, low-minded, common and vulgar” (Nietzsche, 1998: 10). In this statement, Nietzsche points out that the rich and high-ranking individuals of the society took it upon themselves to determine what was good or bad, establishing a separation of the classes that insisted on the common man being bad.
This concept is supported in section four of his first treatise when Nietzsche talks about how he traced the words for ‘good’ to their origins: “I found that they all lead back to the same conceptual transformation – that everywhere the basic concept is ‘noble,’ ‘aristocratic’ in the sense related to the estates, out of which ‘good’ in the sense of ‘noble of soul’ … necessarily develops” (Nietzsche, 1998: 12). I agree that this is the case because society is still very much organized in this way. Something that is bad for a common person to do can be considered good for today’s ‘nobles.’ For example, Paris Hilton is now famous for her ability to flaunt her body, but a young girl with a similar body and behavior in the common realm would be vilified, “for here feeling has arrived at an opposite of that low degree of warmth presupposed by every calculating prudence, every assessment of utility – and not just for once, for an hour of exception, but rather for the long run” (Nietzsche, 1998: 10-11).
Some find it difficult to agree with him, though, on the idea that religion is primarily a reaction of the common against the nobles, as when he introduces his concept of the ‘slave morality’ in which the common man mad Neitzsche, Friedrich, 1998, On the Genealogy of Morality, M.Clark and A. Swensen (trans.) Indianapolis: Hackette “resentment itself turn creative” and thereby gave “birth to values” (Neitzsche, 1998
: 21). Because the common people couldn’t attain the same sorts of ‘goodness’ that could be attained by the nobles, Nietzsche says they had a deep-seated resentment toward the ruling classes that put these limits upon them. Even the religious system of morality, according to Nietzsche, was handed down from the upper classes since this aspect of morality started when the priestly caste and the highest caste were one in the same group. “Here, for example, ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ stand opposite each other for the first time as marks of distinction among the estates” (Nietzsche, 1998: 14). However, by twisting their resentment against the upper classes into a kind of reversal of the morality offered by the upper classes, Nietzsche says the weak created a means by which they could “construe weakness itself as freedom and their particular mode of existence as an accomplishment” (Nietzsche, 1998: 29).
I see religion as being more of a means of imbuing individuals within the common class with a sense of hope for something better as one of the only means by which they might survive through the next day. Because they were so downtrodden by the nobles and had no real means of attaining a higher distinction, the commoners needed something to encourage them to keep working instead of just giving up. With this hope of heavenly rewards, a new system had to be developed that would encourage the type of work ethic the nobles needed out of their workers. Thus, the system of morality represented in the church was a construction of the nobles as a means of getting the most work possible out of the workers and a shared desire by the workers to attain a better future in some form. Where these two concepts merged is where the concepts of Christian morality emerged.
Works Cited
Baillet, A. The Life of Descartes. London: Printed for R. Simpson at the Harp in St. Paul’s Churchyard. (1693).
Descartes, Rene. “Meditations on First Philosophy.” Trans. John Veitch. New York: Prometheus Books. (1989).
Descartes, René. “Discourse on Method.” Vol. XXXIV, Part 1. The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son, 1909–14; Bartleby.com (2001). Web.
Neitzsche, Friedrich. “On the Genealogy of Morality” M.Clark and A. Swensen (trans.) Indianapolis: Hackett. (1998).
Beyond Good and Evil is one of the most famous works by Friedrich Nietzsche, written in 1886. This work is a kind of analysis that wills certainly to truth. His ideas are “beyond good and evil”; they are much deeper, and this is why they are so attractive and correct to lots of readers.
This work helps to discover not only the truth as it is, but also men’s truth that is crucially important for the society. With the help of a deep analysis of self-perception and religious issues, the reader gets a wonderful opportunity to analyze the truth and its components, to comprehend why truth is so important, and to investigate all spheres of life taking into consideration various perspectives.
Nietzsche was the only person who affirmed that “God is dead”. This statement appears in his several works. Even if Nietzsche did not concentrate on the idea of the dead God in his Beyond Good and Evil, that very thought is still considered to be present between the lines of the book, just expressed in other words.
In order to comprehend whether Nietzsche kept to such an idea of the dead God in all his works, and Beyond Good and Evil in particular, it is better to analyze his original works, written in German, and grasp the major idea of translation and the reproduction of the thoughts, and only than start analyzing them.
Friedrich Nietzsche is a German philosopher and writer, this is why it is necessary to underline that all his works were written in German and translated by other people in many languages in different ways. The point is that translated works may not represent the major idea that the original author had in mind.
For example, in The Gay Science (in German, it sounds as Die fröhliche Wissenschaft),Nietzsche said that “God ist tot!” All writers translated this very idea literary, as “God is dead!” Maybe, it is one of their big mistakes to translate the words with such a serious meaning in a literary way, which can easily confuse the reader.
Such translations make lots philosophers and Nietzsche’s followers in particular to think that Nietzsche was an atheist. However, it was not true. In spite of all facts, Nietzsche believed in God (if this were not true, he could hardly create his works and write about God and his role in every person’s life). If Nietzsche says that there is no God, it will make all his works and our life senseless. If God is already dead, he had to be alive some time.
And if he was alive, there should be some reasons for his death. In The Gay Science, Nietzsche mentions that God is dead because “we” have killed him. (p. 120) The first question that appears in my who all those “we” – all people or philosophers only. But, in fact, is it possible to kill God? Hardly! This is why, it is crucially important to think once again how it can be true that God is dead.
The German word tot may be also translated as obsolete or even no longer useful. Taking into account such meanings, it is possible to think that Nietzsche had another thought in mind that not the idea, which is know to lots of people. This is why it is possible to find out the similar ideas in Beyond Good and Evil.
The major theme in Beyond Good and Evil is the exploration of truth regardless of numerous religious, social, and moral aspects. According to Nietzsche, every person is able to comprehend truth on a certain level. Unfortunately, each belief may be comprehended in different ways and even makes a person blindly faithful.
Nietzsche underlines the fact that only men may understand and delve feels. Women are not able to complete the same task of the same level. Even more, Nietzsche scorns females from time to time. In Beyond Good and Evils, Nietzsche supposes that Truth itself is a woman, and lots of male philosophers have already tried to comprehend female nature and failed all their attempts. Female nature will never allow herself to be won by men. (p. 3)
In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche also tells about Nihilism and its effect on the exploration of truth. The author tells that one of the possible reasons, which do not allow to comprehend everything clearly, is the idea of the old God. (p. 22) And this is what is so crucially important in order to answer the major question – if Nietzsche uses the idea of the dead God in Beyond Good and Evil.
After we analyze, that the translations of the works by Nietzsche may not really correctly represent his ideas and intentions, and clear up that his idea of the dead God may be interpreted in English in several ways, we can surely say that Beyond Good and Evil is also one of the works, which are based on the Nietzsche’s idea that God is dead.
In this work, he underlines that all humans are biological creatures, which are ruled by certain instincts. In order to live a full life, they need to will to power and truth, create their own values, live according to them, and do not take into consideration the principle of other people, who are not as strong as they are.
Without any doubts, to hear about the death of God may shock lots of people. (Kuehls, 6) However, exactly such ideas attract the attention of many readers. Searching for truth is one of the most important things in the whole world. People spend lots of time in order to comprehend what is really truth and what is not.
Friedrich Nietzsche created a wonderful work Beyond Good and Evil to help people and show them one of the possible ways in such kind of searching. He divides people according to their genders and points out why he makes such a choice. He grounds each his idea with the help of historically prevalent points of view and explain it to the reader. It is crucially important to comprehend all his words not literary, as it constricts the meaning he wants to represent.
The death of God is the common idea for Nietzsche’s numerous works, and the reader should not accept it literary in order to understand that God’s death represents the crisis, people live in. In order to overcome this crisis, it is important to explore truth casting aside all moral, religious, and social principles. All people have the right of choice, and if their choice is to understand the truth of life, Nietzsche is eager to help them and show the right way.
Works Cited
Kuehls, T. Beyond Sovereign Territory: the Space of Ecopolitics. U of Minnesota Press, 1996.
Nietzsche, F. W. Beyond Good and Evil. Plain Label Books, 1917.
Nietzsche, F. W. The Gay Science. Cambridge University Science, 2001.
The accumulation of metaphors becomes the accepted truth. They emerged from their repeated use. Without the body of the argument, the title expresses that there is a form of lying that is not considered immoral. In the body of his argument, Nietzsche (146) indicated that there are different forms of truth.
He stated that the absolute truth is impossible to generate from nature because nature gives no explanation (Nietzsche 142). All forms of truth are derived in relativity with other objects, concepts, and forms. The lack of an absolute truth from which all other facts can be derived makes all things that are considered facts to be lies.
In the title, Nietzsche referred to these facts, whose foundation is based on metaphors, as the non-moral deception. In his argument, lying refers to the use of common knowledge as truths when we know that they cannot stand out by themselves without support from earlier assumptions.
Nietzsche differentiated the form of lying associated with the lack of integrity from that of using common attributes as absolute truths. When a man says that he is rich when he is poor, he is a liar. In that case, Nietzsche (143) explained that a liar in common terms misuses established meanings and descriptions.
However, there is the acceptable lie of classifying common knowledge as the absolute truth. The main difference between the two forms of lying is that the former distorts conventional descriptions. In the latter, something that was derived from assumptions, with time becomes the truth.
The story of its derivation is lost as it passes through generations. Nietzsche elaborated that “truths are illusions of which we have forgotten that they are illusions” (146). Nietzsche’s argument is that the language that defines concepts was once formed from cultural beliefs, which were based on illusions.
Nietzsche (153) showed the difference between the man guided by concepts and the man guided by his intuition. Misfortune is likely to fall on the man of intuition because he forgets his past when most events are a repetition of the past. The man of concepts may also meet his misfortune.
However, he is strong enough to maintain his composure. He hides his pain and bad feelings from the view of the majority. Nietzsche labeled the man’s reaction as a “masterpiece of pretence” (153). The man of intuition develops metaphors when the intellect forms concepts.
Both metaphors and concepts are based on their alignment with other objects. From his argument, one can suggest that man would be more insightful if he were to remember both the metaphors and the concepts.
The conventional concepts give human beings a reason to live. According to Nietzsche (150), man would have nothing to believe in without settling in conventional concepts.
He would lose faith in reality and everything would become like a dream. Without the concepts, man would find no reason to struggle for self-preservation. In other words, man would live as long as life was pleasant. He would allow himself to die, if suffering came into his life.
The project of language and art
Nietzsche (141) began his argument by relating the existence of the world to a story invented by a creative writer. Nietzsche claimed that “the intellect is human, and only its own possessor and progenitor regards it with such pathos” (141).
From the statement, Nietzsche suggested that common knowledge is more valuable to those who develop it. He showed that language and art should not be perceived as if they have less value because they do not portray the absolute truth.
The fact is that common knowledge also has failed to convey the absolute truth. It appears more valuable because of the emphasis that its developers have put on it. The same point is reinforced when he stated that when someone dreams the same dream every day, he will take it seriously (Nietzsche 151).
Art should not carry less weight because it is perceived as an illusion. Considering that illusion is the basis of all relative truths, art is as illusionary as common knowledge.
Language is developed and passed through generations. Its original metaphors are lost in the modern world. Nietzsche (143) questioned whether language is the true designation of things because it was developed from the perceptions of delusional people.
It becomes a hard task to find absolute truth when the language used to develop facts is itself a product of illusion. It also becomes a problem to claim that one has the absolute truth when one relies on using the same language. However, he recognized that there are generally accepted terms in language that makes it valid.
These conventional terms can be used as truths based on rules and laws. His argument recognized that differences exist in generalized words, objects, and concepts. Language is useful, provided it is used within the accepted rules and laws. In such a case, it can be used to give different people similar images when a word is mentioned.
In the formation of words, Nietzsche (145) identified that they were formed relative to other words and concepts. His argument is evident in the modern world. New words are developed to fit into existing words and concepts.
The differences in languages are an indication of the difference in perceptions. Language is developed from metaphors, which show that people aligned different metaphors for the same objects. Nietzsche claimed that the differences in language show that “what matters is never the truth, never the full and adequate expression” (144).
The perfect metaphor cannot be obtained by human judgment. It leaves out gaps for the man of intuition to continuously form new images.
There is a need to develop concepts that align themselves with that which already exists. Nietzsche (150) described that emerging ideas have to form their foundation on the concepts that already exist. There is a need for protection from generally accepted concepts. Ideas that are contrary to conventions will be regarded as baseless thoughts.
Nietzsche (151) claimed that the need to form concepts based on conventions has imprisoned thoughts in its own fortress. The need to align ideas with those that exist has reduced the extent to which creative writers can reach in forming new images.
The importance of his argument in the context of modern literature
Imagination should be used to give descriptions in areas that common knowledge has not been developed. Nietzsche (141) claimed that any little thing will expand to be as large as a balloon full of air. He gives the impression that there are many areas that are untapped in storytelling.
A modern creative writer should fill the missing common knowledge by his imagination. The reason is that common knowledge was derived from metaphors. A writer can build his art by giving vivid descriptions of little things that have not been explained by science. A modern writer should remember that any small part can be expanded through imagination.
A modern creative writer has to use his imagination to substitute science in trying to create an understanding of the world. Nietzsche (148) claimed that man wants to align things with mankind, as we strive to get a better understanding of the world. There is the perception that everything that exists has some relationship with man.
Modern literature has followed a similar path in linking all existing objects to mankind’s benefits and destruction. Nietzsche (151) described that there is a desire to create metaphors that remains unsatisfied.
Scientific knowledge has set a barrier on creating metaphors. The desire for metaphors finds an opportunity in the creative arts and myths.
In modern contexts, Nietzsche (142) gave the impression that fiction can be used to give images a weight similar to facts because people love dreams. Nietzsche stated that “in the indifference of its ignorance, rests on the pitiless, the greedy, the insatiable, the murderous – clinging to dreams, as it were, to the back of a tiger” (143).
People have desires that they yearn to satisfy. The author gave the impression that literature that aligns itself with people’s dreams will be more attractive.
A modern writer should think of using creativity to describe things differently. Nietzsche (143) claimed that the masses are indifferent when it comes to choosing between pure knowledge and fiction when they do not give them a pleasant life. It shows that whether a writer uses facts or fiction in a story, it may not alter their preference.
Equally, people are hostile to truths and lies that are damaging. Nietzsche (143) stated that people have a strong desire for harmless creative deception, as much as they desire for harmless truth.
The man of intuition should continue forming images that are not restricted by scientific knowledge because common knowledge was derived from metaphors.
Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.
As an object of my analysis, I have chosen Friedrich Nietzsche’s article called On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense (a Nonmoral Sense in some translations). It is one of his earliest works, written in 1873 and unpublished until his death (Gilb par. 1). Although it is not the most famous Nietzsche’s work, some critics believe that it is “a cornerstone of his thought” (Gilb par. 1). I find this article interesting since it questions the concepts, which the majority of people consider to be true by default; actually, he questions even the truth itself.
Description of Nietzsche’s Theory
The article starts with the following words: “In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a star on which clever animals invented knowledge” (Nietzsche par. 1). From the very beginning, the readers realize that the author will tell about our insignificance, perhaps even ignorance. And this guess is correct.
Nietzsche explains how people are wrong thinking of themselves as the center of the universe. We have occupied only a tiny part of it and only for a very short time. We share our planet with numerous other creatures, and the fact that we are not able to communicate with those does not mean that they do not think of themselves as the center of the universe as well.
He states, “If we could communicate with the mosquito, then we would learn that he floats through the air with the same self-importance, feeling within itself the flying center of the world” (Nietzsche par. 2).
The main and only reason for people to think that they are superior to any other creature is that due to evolution, we have developed knowledge, abilities to think, remember, doubt, and so on. However, too often, we use those to pretend, deceive, and manipulate. And although the humankind is trying to dominate over other creatures and is continually exploiting the Earth, we actually have no idea how the world really works.
The way we get our knowledge and communicate is entirely subjective. People just take some stimulus, connect it with a particular image in their minds, give the characteristics to it, and create an idea or a concept, which later becomes the basis of language and knowledge. Naturally, every concept changes from individual to individual.
So, although people create ideas of language and knowledge, lie and truth, those are subjective and do not exist in nature or apart from men. Additionally, people tend to create particular categories of things, to which they refer similar objects. In reality, those do not exist, since every object is unique and should be considered separately.
My Critique of the Theory
I agree with many ideas, which Nietzsche describes in his On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense, for example, with the fact that our existence is temporary and insignificant, and although we have developed an ability to think and learn, we do not have any idea about the real nature of things. I even agree that the concepts of truth and lie do not exist in nature.
However, here, I want to focus on the idea that every object in the universe should be considered individually. Nietzsche says that people group things with similar characteristics into particular categories and name them with the same words and the same concepts. To describe his point of view, the philosopher talks about the concept of leaf, which exists in people’s minds. When a person sees a leaf, it is absolutely obvious that he or she has never seen this particular leaf before.
However, since it is very similar to others and has similar characteristics, a person categorizes it with the rest of the leaves. So, a leaf people think of is “some kind of original form after which all leaves have been woven, marked, copied, colored, curled, and painted” (Nietzsche par. 8).
Every individual has their own understanding and their own “leaf,” which is why everyone little by little creates their own sense of truth and lies, as well as every other thing in the world (Nietzsche par. 8). However, since every object in the universe is individual, none of them can be taken as a foundation of the truth.
So, Nietzsche encourages people to consider and analyze all objects separately instead of categorizing them. Nevertheless, such categorization is necessary for us to communicate, understand each other, and even comprehend things at all. From the very childhood, we are taught that this is a cat, that is a tree, and so on.
If, instead of memorizing that, we would analyze every single cat we meet, we would not have much time to make sense of other things in the universe. At this point, I agree a lot more with Plato, who states that there are some perfect things, and all others are only their different representations (Vlach par. 4). Descartes had a very similar view in this regard, too (“Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense” par. 5). Actually, their theories are very close to categorization, which we have discussed before.
To conclude, On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense is rather interesting, and it makes the readers think over many things in their lives. However, talking about the perception of things, Plato’s and Descartes’ theories seem more realistic.
Works Cited
Gilb, Stephen 2010, On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense. Web.
Rationalism is the study of reason in philosophy. In a close analysis, we are going to examine the rational views of two philosophers, namely, Rene Descartes and Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche.
Their works reveal a great application of rationalism in similar and contrasting approaches. One of the greatest philosophical ideas that Descartes invented is the doubt theory. Nietzsche uses a similar approach in the introspection of his maxims. In his hyperbolical skepticism, Descartes arrives at the conclusion of the irrefutable existence of thought. Logically linked to the existence of thought, is therefore that of life.
Descartes says that the fact of his thinking is evidence that he is living. In his works, Nietzsche, on the other hand uses a similar degree of skepticism on the maxim of idleness and self-evaluation. An individual who doesn’t engage in physical tasks would easily be said to be lazy by the society. The mental task of self-examination taking place in his mind goes unnoticed.
Descartes and Nietzsche do not hold similar views on religion. They lay open a fundamental critique of the existence of God. Nietzsche in the seventh maxim asks whether man is a result of the erroneous work of God or God is the error of man. Descartes poses a rather hideous question on God in his Cartesian theory.
He asserts that God’s creation may not have been intended to deceive, which is an indication of imperfection therefore begging the question of what is possibly the origin of error. Descartes tries to negate that the human faculties can be the source of errors as they are God’s own creation.
This question is inadequately addressed by another renowned philosopher, Plato, who presupposes that errors are as a result of a given deprivation of knowledge and not necessarily a reversal of a certain virtue. Plato’s explanation does not however satisfy Descartes who finally derives a more rational theory. According to Descartes, the cause of errors is deeply entrenched in knowledge and will. In his theory, Descartes argues that the human intellect is limited unlike God’s which is infinite.
This means that the human mind is insufficient in terms of the ideas it can be able to contain. (Descartes Lecture 8A page 45). Choice or will on the other hand is not dependent on content like the human mind but the ability to accept, refuse, welcome or shun. He continues to say that error occurs when the will goes beyond the human intellect because it appeals to things beyond its comprehension.
It is worthwhile noting that the religious theories advanced by both Nietzsche and Descartes have received enormous criticisms within the field of academia and beyond. Descartes has been adversely branded an atheist.
The philosophical theory of Nietzsche on religion has to some extent even compromised his reputation. Similarly, the maxim that asks whether God is dead by Nietzsche is hugely considered atheist. Nietzsche argues that the continued secularization of Europe and the leap forward of science is largely to blame for the demise of the Christian God.
One of the most unmistakable aspects of Descartes and Nietzsche in their philosophical works is their fight for reason .Dualism in and outside philosophy implies a relationship between two entities. Descartes advances the theory that the human body is a constituent of two main parts namely, the mind and body. He argues that the body’s operation conforms to the laws of motion which are entirely governed by physics.
He continues to say that the mind remains motionless and cannot be extended meaning that it does not comply with the law of physics. In his conclusion, he draws that the body is controlled by the mind but the body can at certain instances control the mind as the case of passion. Nietzsche on his part is seen to use the concept of dualism to portray a different philosophical idea about the real and the world of imagination. (Nietzsche 13).
He postulates that there can be no separation between the real and the apparent world as this would demonstrate a sharp decadence of morality in the society. A closer examination of the two philosophers regarding the concept of dualism and how each uses it to rationally advance their theories reveals two things. Whereas Descartes uses the mind and soul to argue his case, Nietzsche employs the two worlds, the real and the imagined.
This is how they diverge but in terms of the moral dimension they give their theories on dualism, Descartes and Nietzsche converge at a point of agreement. Related to this, is the fact that Nietzsche is seemingly blaming Plato as the latter’s ideas are to blame for the decadence in morals of the world for the time leading up to Nietzsche’s time. Nietzsche says that the dualism is transformed into Christianity which is later secularized.
A closer look at the maxims by Nietzsche reveals a philosopher who adopted a radical approach to rationalism unlike Descartes who is evasive especially on the existence of God. Descartes says that the existence of God is not a subject of doubt. According to him, God is extremely powerful and his intelligence is unparalleled. He says that God’s presence in the world is eternal and that he is independent. Nietzsche makes his position clear on morality.
His claim is that there is no measure that can evaluate or judge a human being and that the idea of God is a deterrent to existence. Only in disowning God, according to Nietzsche shall humankind free himself. Another significant drift between the two philosophers however comes to the fore in the concept of the senses. Descartes proofs using the wax demonstration that the senses pale into insignificance against the mind.
Descartes is at a loss as to how the power of sight is overshadowed by the power of judgment that rests in the mind. Nietzsche on the contrary is against philosophers who are not accommodative to change and who do not regard the senses. According to Nietzsche, a sense is not deceptive. He is against the use of reason which is full of falsification. Nietzsche uses the nose to demonstrate the effectiveness of the power of the senses.
Descartes formulated the theory of fallacies which in principle is very similar to the theory of errors that Nietzsche adopted in his philosophical works. In his theory, Descartes negates everything that happens and assumes it’s false or it’s a lie. (Descartes Lecture 9A page 27).
That meant that everything that happens is questionable and can be refuted. The same statement can also be right depending on the perspective in which it is looked at. This indicates that a statement could be true or false at the same time. On the other side, Nietzsche unveiled a theory that was developed on the basis of four errors. The first error revolves around the confusion between causes and effects. (Nietzsche 23).
Most people cannot differentiate between the causes of a certain phenomenon and its effects e.g. an accident or a disease. The human being believes in erroneous causality which is Nietzsche’s second error. In his explanation, Nietzsche cautions us against apportioning blame on God or the world of spirits yet we are to blame for our own wrongs or sins. (Nietzsche Lecture 1 page 39).
The third error that Nietzsche explores is on the belief that human beings have in imaginary causes. This, he explains, is an acquisition of knowledge from known phenomena to the unknown which gives one a feeling of consolation and strength because one acquires an explanation that he or she didn’t have.
Nietzsche further explains that religious and moral issues rely heavily on imaginary reasons other than the real ones. (Clarke 61). This, he says, results in an escape from rationality. The fourth error that Nietzsche discovers was deeply rooted in the concept of free will. Free will is wrought in systems that are charged with the dispensation of justice and punishment. This system has to be perpetually on a mission to assert its authority and has to bring wrongdoers to book thanks to already laid statutes of administration.
Nietzsche takes exception with the doctrine as it was established to purposefully find fault and hence justly deliver punitive action against the offenders. The origin of the whole doctrine of free will originated from heads of communities who wanted to bestow upon themselves the power to punish. According to Nietzsche, the concept of free will became a vicious tool of the ruling class.
To have an indefatigable spirit in the fight for reason is the ultimate goal of any rationalist philosopher. Nietzsche and Descartes have left the indelible mark of being true fighters of their course. According to Nietzsche, acquisition of knowledge is not good enough but to act upon knowledge is what differentiates rationalist philosophy from any other. (Nietzsche Lecture 2 page 12).
Knowledge only becomes relevant when it is guided by wisdom. Descartes sought to clarify that apart from God whose position in the philosophical pedestal is distinct; there exist other ideas that qualify as rational. We can therefore draw a degree of compromise between Descartes and Nietzsche concerning God and wisdom.
The two philosophers seem to agree that for reason to reach the peak, within which it becomes useful, there has to be a regulatory mechanism to guide the knowledge. As in the case of Nietzsche, wisdom falls into place, and for Descartes, God’s place becomes eternal.
The ideas that are compliant with rationalism apart from those about God, according to Descartes, border on mathematical inventions that he himself made. (Brown 46). Descartes pioneered great inventions in analytical geometry, in optics and in the laws of refraction. Nietzsche saw his works as challenging, same as Descartes.
Nietzsche in his eighth maxim on war developed a pursuit of reason guided by a war-like approach. Important in our analysis, is Nietzsche’s maxim on war in which he says that the experiences that do not destroy him, make him a better person. The maxim finds its match in Descartes’ firm belief in Catholicism and God, even though he sought to question the existence of God given his mission as a rationalist philosopher.
That Descartes and Nietzsche have made an identity for themselves as distinguished philosophers aligned to the rationalistic school of thought cannot be overstated. We can arrive at the conclusion that the two have independently made achievements that are highly qualified in reason.
While some of their views especially on the existence of God are sharply divergent, we have been able to draw similar theoretical standpoints on their application of reason as in the case of Descartes’ dualism of soul and mind and Nietzsche’s dualism of the real and the imagined world. It therefore becomes necessary for any scholar of philosophy to examine the works of Descartes and Nietzsche comparatively to understand the underlying rational perspectives.
Works Cited
Brown, Deborah. Descartes and the Passionate Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Clarke, Desmond. Descartes’s Theory of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Twilight of the Idols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
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 Nietzsche’s 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 individual’s 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 one’s self and also the meaning of an individual’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 man’s 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 man’s 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.
Nietzsche’s 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 Nietzsche’s argument ignores the role of social norms in shaping people’s 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 doesn’t 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, Nietzsche’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 person’s ego. If punishment and cruelty make responsible citizens, then the purpose of Nietzsche’s 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.