Category: Nietzsche

Introduction

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 Nietzsche’s 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.

Nietzsche’s 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, Nietzsche’s 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).

Nietzsche’s 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. Nietzsche’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 one’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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 philosopher’s 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 Nietzsche’s 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, Nietzsche’s 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). ‘Nietzsche’s Nihilism.’ The Monist, 102(3), pp. 369-385.

Dowling, A. (2017). The rise of Catalan independence: Spain’s 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.

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 culture’s 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 philosopher’s 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.

Reference

Nietzsche, F. (1886). The birth of tragedy. Holtof.

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 one’s 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.

Nietzsche’s “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 Nietzsche’s 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 one’s 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 one’s 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 one’s 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.

Nietzsche

Nietzsche was a German philosopher who believed in rather unconventional ways of acquiring individual moral ethics that was common to many people. He believed that the need to conform to moral ethics should not be motivated by an afterlife expectation as stipulated in the teachings of Christianity. He believed that human beings could do what was required instead of having to use the notion that if people did what was morally acceptable they would have the privilege of enjoying an afterlife. He postulated that such an argument human beings were weakened in person by such postulations to make use of their strength to realize the societal moral aspects and make use of them effectively. Nietzsche outlined that the aspect that was generally considered to be the truth was nothing but an illusion created by human beings about the collective ideas gathered over time. (Friedrich 125) Aspects such as personal experience and the need to survive amicably with neighbors, significantly determined the resolution of persons. In the writings published in ‘unfashionable observations,’ there is a general observation that Nietzsche criticizes the kind of society that has emerged in Germany. (Friedrich 112) He attacks society with irony stating that what is being considered by many people as being acceptable is an illusion. He goes on to outline that over the years the community has continuously nurtured a culture that outwardly seems to be favorable but on a closer look is marred with selfishness and evil deeds. Nietzsche demonstrates his pessimistic approach in an attempt to better and criticize society. There is a general feeling that he wants to distance himself from the society that he belongs. Furthermore, Nietzsche does not show any appreciation whatsoever for the efforts that humanity has invested in an attempt to make the world a better place. (Friedrich 103)

Spangler

On the other hand, Spengler is much more practical in his criticism and even spares some of his writing towards the appreciation of humanity. Spengler appreciates the fact for many years through various aspects man has always attempted to make his life better and through this efforts invention and innovation in various sectors have been attained. Although, he observes that there is a general erosion of morals, he does not fail to appreciate the way people have attempted to deal with this situation using such aspects as art. (Spengler 98) His approach is rather practical and avoiding harsh criticism as used by Nietzsche. Spengler gives the impression that he is part of this world and acknowledges that certain aspects need to be changed when people work together. In addition, he approaches moral from more open point of view and in the event avoids being judgmental. He brings into aspect the idea of variety by stating that each and every community have their own ethical codes that they conform to, and it is not compulsory that all communities have the same codes. This is because codes are the guidelines that are unique to each and every society due to the fact that different societies undergo and experience different challenges. Furthermore, social structures are constructed over time to enable human beings to co-exist comfortably. Therefore, it would be unfair to impose upon another culture the moral codes of a different culture. However, in the aspect of the role of religion on the construction of moral ethics within a society Spengler tends to agree with Nietzsche. Spengler outlines that Christianity was not the one that has nurtured ‘Faustian’ but that ‘Faustian’ has nurtured Christianity. This observation is actually true because there are many denominations within Christianity with each having varied principles. Furthermore, there is the general observation that Christianity principles change from time to time with regard to the unique societal changes faced. However, Spangler still maintains that there is still an opportunity of human beings to foster change when there is the will. He particularly maintains that Christianity has played a significant role in acting as the control and the motivation that encourages persons to act morally. He observes that the teachings are applicable within all cultures and therefore the aspect of cultural diversity is catered for. (Spengler 82)

Discussion

Looking at Spangler and Nietzsche, there is an observation that they are both similar and different in their arguments in more ways than one. Both philosophers agree that there is a general erosion of morals within cultures and that something needs to be done. They explain that cultures are diverse but the one common denominator among the cultures is that there is erosion of morals. The point at which they differ is that they use different ways to express their arguments. Spangler is more practical in his criticism and actually provides room for the hope of betterment. He provides various examples of how humanity has continuously strived to make life better through such aspects as art. This shows optimism on his part. On the other hand Nietzsche is much harsher in his criticism and even gives the impression that all is lost. Nietzsche even outlines that there is no way that moral ethics can be redeemed when people depended on Christianity.

Work Cited

Friedrich, Nietzsche. Unfashionable Observations: Second Piece. Trans. Richard Gray. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986.

Spengler, Oswald. The Decline of the West. Trans. Charles Francis. New York: Vintage, 1922.

The concept of the death of tragedy is taken from Nietzsche’s book “The Birth of Tragedy” where he declared that God is dead. He stated that Greek tragedy died due to suicide as a result of an irreconcilable disagreement, and its death was sad (Janaway 53). With the beginning of World War II, Nietzsche’s description of the death of tragedy turned out to be more significant. The attitude and concept of Nietzsche regarding this issue can be seen examining the following example. Even though Euripides was younger than Sophocles, their death occurred at the same time in 406 with Euripides dying first. Was Euripides accountable for the death of tragedy, or could he personify the spirit of the time of Nietzsche where such a tragedy was impossible?

The argument made by Nietzsche claimed that Sophocles, precisely in his elderly period and in the preceding twenty years of his profession, was also tainted. Nonetheless, the acceptance that tragedies of Euripides were not actually tragedies and that Sophocles also noted down merely three genuine. These would decrease the entire concept of the death of tragedy, both currently and in 406 B.C, to the illogical except if we bring in Aeschylus at the moment. Nietzsche stated that Aeschylus was the father of tragedy, and that people have to join his cycle if they want to fully understand the tragedy (Janaway 54). This is the description of Nietzsche. and if this idea is preserved, then his claims are not illogical. From this instance, it may be stated that seven level tragedies of Aeschylus were the standard examples of the genre to which Sophocles had donated three huge works of arts before he submitted to the fundamentally non-tragic outlook of the beginning of the fourth century.

Nietzsche’s explanation of the death of Greek tragedy is colorful and comes with astonishing thoughts. Socrates expressed three key maxims which say whoever is virtuous is happy, ignorance brings human sins, and virtue is knowledge (Neill and Ridley 25). Nietzsche stated that the above three maxims of optimism possess the death of tragedy, and this forms the impression that Nietzsche considered to be a delusion. The imperturbable have faith that through the sign of logic, thinking may arrive at the bottommost depths of being and the fact that thinking may not merely distinguish the being but even transform it. Consequently, Nietzsche foresaw a come back to Dionysian drama and alleged that German philosophers and musicians were exclusively ready to guide this rebirth of tragedy.

According to Nietzsche, the death of tragedy did not merely resulted from the fatigue because of ethics. The death of tragedy was aggressive and proceeded in a tragic way. It ended with a suicide of the currently well-known tragedian, Euripides, who had not only merely created the path for his descendants through popularizing the familiar and exalted diction of the tragedy, but on a bottommost height, sought, though without success, to create scholarly sense of the intractable mythic material along with the task for his followers.

Philosophy And The Socratic Wisdom

Regarding one of the causes of the death of tragedy, Socrates presented the hypothetical structure which led to Euripides’s creation of tragedy. Nietzsche was open about the outlook of Socrates’ unfavorable impact and his historical influence on Euripides’s tragedy. Therefore, Nietzsche blamed Socrates for his role in the death of Attic tragedy and also noted how it was embodied in moralizing and rationalizing outlook of current culture to serve as a blockade to the reproduction of tragic culture. Nietzsche discovered a historical example of the modernity. He, therefore, employed Alexandrian culture to emphasize the poverty and was considered to be carefully inculcated in the Socratic faith. Nietzsche appreciated the analysis of Socrates’ and Alexandrian culture which operates as a study of the cultural backgrounds, and, therefore, further enlightens his anticipations for an option of tragic culture (Neill and Ridley 25).

Nietzsche stated that in his book, it is as simply as an aesthetic occurrence that existence and the universe are eternally reasonable. According to Nietzsche, Greek tragedy may not live together in a place of Socratic rationality (Janaway 53). Tragedy obtains its power revealing the depths which stay underneath our rational grounds, while Socrates claims that we fully reveal our human’s nature simply through becoming completely rational. After Socrates, philosophy became a way of gaining wisdom through rational means. In proposing that rational ways may not always strengthen the humans’ knowledge, Nietzsche proposes that philosophy is not a detailed pursuit. Factual wisdom is actually a type which cannot be created by thinking mind according to the philosopher of the XX century. True wisdom is achieved through the Dionysian dissolution of ourselves, which everybody discovers in tragedy, music, and myth. The current world has taken over the rationalistic position of Socrates at the cost of misplacing the imaginative wishes associated with Apollinian and the Dionysian cultures (Neill and Ridley 25). Knowledge can be seen as worth undertaking for its own purpose and considered that entire truth may be identified and described using rational means. Fundamentally, scientific, Socratic, rational, and modern perspectives view the world like something stipulated by a certain reason rather than something above a human rational strength.

Understanding the problems which are associated with Socrates is a vital key to Nietzsche’s concept of solution. Nietzsche did not just overturn the stand of Socrates, but asked everybody to control their impulses. He disapproved everybody to follow his/her impulses trying to achieve which he/she becomes aggressive to his/her personal attainment. As a substitute to Socratic control, Nietzsche does not suggest several theoretical thoughts of nature or liberation. The freedom of expressing something by someone is restricted by what he/she declares to be true. The only Nietzsche’s desire is to be aware of how to prevent the humans’ aspirations to tyrannize and forge. This may be actually the main reflect image of several latest interpretations.

Nietzsche viewed the reasons for the death of such an art form as a result of variations in modern thinking. The piece called Birth of Tragedy is nearly linked to the need for knowledge and description in Socratic thought (Neill and Ridley 25). For Nietzsche, that route was reversible, and cynicism could again overcome the limitation of hopefulness through the revival of tragic insight. This cultural movement cannot come back since the society that was associated with its death made it vanish. Death is the only explanation of the narrator, permitting life skills of an individual to be purified and conveyed. Dionysian festivals often practiced tragedies as one of their common religion practices where they were rejoicing the cycle of life. Both the birth and the death of tragedy were mostly honored by the society. Dionysus was considered to be the only holy being who experienced death and succeeded to return to life.

Works Cited

Janaway, Christopher. Reading Aesthetics and philosophy of Art. Malden, MA: Blackwell publishing, 2006. Print.

Neill, Alex and Aaron Ridley. The philosophy of Art: Retulings Ancient and Modern. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1994. Print.

Zarathustra’s Prologue

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 god’s 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 man’s 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 one’s 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 one’s 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.